Matchmaker Discussion Thread & MM Balance

[Smegger213]

12 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

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. 

Don't need to start any thread.

Its my definition.

I don't care what other people think.

[ghostbuster_]

 

30 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.

no, its not up to you to decide who is unicum and who is not. dont put yourself in a laughable position with that kind of stupid claims anymore, maybe? 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

learn to read the table first before claiming anything? no, there arent 1,27% 60% players. there are 1,27% players with 60% and higher WR. if you want to calculate the percentage of 60% players, you have to do this: 

61% and higher players: 0,8945%

60% and higher players: 1,2755%

in order to find out the percentage of 60% you have to subtract these to values. --> 60% players = 1,2755% - 0,8945% = 0,381% 

same goes for others aswell. So, the percentage of the players with 55%-60% WR is: 7,2491% - 0,8945% = 6,3546% Not 21,47% 

[Smegger213]

33 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

 

no, its not up to you to decide who is unicum and who is not. dont put yourself in a laughable position with that kind of stupid claims anymore, maybe? 

 

learn to read the table first before claiming anything? no, there arent 1,27% 60% players. there are 1,27% players with 60% and higher WR. if you want to calculate the percentage of 60% players, you have to do this: 

61% and higher players: 0,8945%

60% and higher players: 1,2755%

in order to find out the percentage of 60% you have to subtract these to values. --> 60% players = 1,2755% - 0,8945% = 0,381% 

same goes for others aswell. So, the percentage of the players with 55%-60% WR is: 7,2491% - 0,8945% = 6,3546% Not 21,47% 

Whatever!!! Who cares.

[ghostbuster_]

44 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Whatever!!! Who cares.

lol. apparently you should. otherwise we saw what happens. you put yourself in a laughable position over and over again. at least you could learn to read the table and start coming to right conclusions. 

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

4 hours 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.

So you can never say how much money you have on your bank account, because value of currency changes, there is inflation, economic disturbances and you also withdraw some from time to time? Topkek.

[Smegger213]

1 minute ago, Von_Pruss said:

So you can never say how much money you have on your bank account, because value of currency changes, there is inflation, economic disturbances and you also withdraw some from time to time? Topkek.

That's why I said it's pointless stating a set figure.

Would me more accurate to state an average.

[ghostbuster_]

18 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

So you can never say how much money you have on your bank account, because value of currency changes, there is inflation, economic disturbances and you also withdraw some from time to time? Topkek.

I hope he knows that he needs to subtract the values with minus in front in order to calculate how much money he has left in his account. 

[lup3s]

29 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

lol. apparently you should. otherwise we saw what happens. you put yourself in a laughable position over and over again. at least you could learn to read the table and start coming to right conclusions. 

 

Imagine bringing actual numbers to a discussion, only to have them (intentionally?) misinterpreted - World of Warships : the thinking man's action game  

[ghostbuster_]

2 minutes ago, lup3s said:

 

Imagine bringing actual numbers to a discussion, only to have them (intentionally?) misinterpreted - World of Warships : the thinking man's action game  

but but its up to him how he defines thinking. maybe this is his own definition of thinking. 

[Excavatus]

Ladies and gentelmen, 

 

I found myself in need of reminding a couple points to you.

 

1. Please stay away personal attacks and prolonged heated discussions between two people, use PMs and without harressment and insults ofcourse. 
2. This is a public forum, If you don't care what people think or If you don't want people to disagree with you, may it is not wise to put your ideas on a public forum. 
3. please always try to stay in the boundaries of the forum rules. 

Take this message as an informal warning. 

 

Thank you very much. 

[CaTTiViKIT]

The proof that the WG, forum or other systems for problems and / or changes does not take them into consideration .... but they reveal themselves only to say 2 obvious things about respect for (right) conversations.

[Smegger213]

2 minutes ago, CaTTiViKIT said:

The proof that the WG, forum or other systems for problems and / or changes does not take them into consideration .... but they reveal themselves only to say 2 obvious things about respect for (right) conversations.

Not mentioning any names. But some players on this forum just cannot let go and learn to keep quiet.

Me included, for which I apologize.

[Bear__Necessities]

1 hour ago, Smegger213 said:

Not mentioning any names. But some players on this forum just cannot let go and learn to keep quiet.

Me included, for which I apologize.

You know what. S**t happens. I ain't an angel either. GL in all future games. 

[ghostbuster_]

19 hours ago, Smegger213 said:

Not mentioning any names. But some players on this forum just cannot let go and learn to keep quiet.

Me included, for which I apologize.

Dont forget to look up how to read the tables 

[Smegger213]

6 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

Dont forget to look up how to read the tables 

Well, that could be a bit difficult, because the table supplied did not have any explanations as to what each field column actually meant.

IE there was no explanation of what the percentile figure actually meant.

[ghostbuster_]

14 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Well, that could be a bit difficult, because the table supplied did not have any explanations as to what each field column actually meant.

IE there was no explanation of what the percentile figure actually meant.

We didnt have an explanation either. But since total cant be over 100% you could easly figure it out. (According to your calculation, 47% and 48% players were something like 130% of the player base if i remember correct. And thats just dumb)

[Smegger213]

Just now, ghostbuster_ said:

We didnt have an explanation either. But since total cant be over 100% you could easly figure it out. (According to your calculation, 47% and 48% players were something like 130% of the player base if i remember correct. And thats just dumb)

I did not say that.

The table said 60% win rate 1.27%

With other percent figures for all the other win rates.

But I am not going to get into another slagging match with you.

So I consider the matter closed.

I suggest you do the same.

[ghostbuster_]

37 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

I did not say that.

The table said 60% win rate 1.27%

With other percent figures for all the other win rates.

But I am not going to get into another slagging match with you.

So I consider the matter closed.

I suggest you do the same.

So you tunnel visioned on one value on a table without any explanations instead of looking at the whole table to understand how you should read it  I hope you learned something. Tunnel visioning is just bad and gets you nowhere. In RL and also in the game.

[COPlUM]

Statistical outlier but I was just in a game where my team had 40,91% average winrate vs the enemy team's 55,54%. The clock was at 16:04 when everyone on our team was dead, no ship on the enemy team took any damage. I had fun though, for different reasons, just laughing.

[CaTTiViKIT]

2 ore fa, COPlUM ha scritto:

Statistical outlier but I was just in a game where my team had 40,91% average winrate vs the enemy team's 55,54%. The clock was at 16:04 when everyone on our team was dead, no ship on the enemy team took any damage. I had fun though, for different reasons, just laughing.

This is how we have to do it, start laughing, because if you think you are playing to improve and / or compete, you are in the wrong game.
Between MM of m ..... and rng of the bullets that go into a black hole 7 km from the other ship what you have to do but burst out laughing.
Then like today you play 3 games, see the m .... more total, close and move on to something else, take it with philosophy also because it is always worse (see sub and cv)

[Darkeid]

1st match of the day! 3 ppl over 50% vs 8!! 45% vs 58% 



 

[Smegger213]

Seeing as players just love to post their screenies.

Here is my effort. Waste of time even playing.

We lost, but at least I didn't come last on our team.

That distinction fell to the Buffalo player.

But it's pointless complaining against mismatched teams due to Win Rates, or any other stat for that matter.

We all know Wargaming will NEVER do anything about it.

[Darkeid]

6 minutes ago, Smegger213 said:

Seeing as players just love to post their screenies.

Here is my effort. Waste of time even playing.

We lost, but at least I didn't come last on our team.

That distinction fell to the Buffalo player.

But it's pointless complaining against mismatched teams due to Win Rates, or any other stat for that matter.

We all know Wargaming will NEVER do anything about it.

Who knows maybe when this thread reaches 1000 pages long and the majority keeps mentioning the imbalanced teams and trash level matchmaking , perhaps they will do something about it.

Saying that they (wg) will not do anything is not a solution (unless ofc you are affiliated with them and know something) . Keep pointing the problem out , you never know.

[ColonelPete]

19 minutes ago, Darkeid said:

Who knows maybe when this thread reaches 1000 pages long and the majority keeps mentioning the imbalanced teams and trash level matchmaking , perhaps they will do something about it.

Saying that they (wg) will not do anything is not a solution (unless ofc you are affiliated with them and know something) . Keep pointing the problem out , you never know.

As I pointed out a few pages ago, WG did do something, just recently. Players get uptiered slightly less now.

[Smegger213]

49 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

As I pointed out a few pages ago, WG did do something, just recently. Players get uptiered slightly less now.

Well isn't that funny.

I haven't done a test, but lately I get put as bottom tier far more often than I am top tier.

So, Wargaming can shout all day about so called less being bottom tier.

Its a croc of crap.