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

Experimenting with MM and lose streaks

100 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[CATS]
Players
19,451 posts
12,228 battles
27 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

I'm sorry but that isn't proof. If there was tampering and all people noticed it, it shouldn't be called tampering. We know that beginners are set in a different pool. Not sure when they explained this mechanic to the community.

It is in the wiki and obvious when you look at the MM from a beginner and a veteran player. And I think it was mentioned on the forum by WG or during an Q&A. Beginner MM is no secret. Even beginners are told about that when they ask for advice on the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,644 posts
14,316 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

It is in the wiki and obvious when you look at the MM from a beginner and a veteran player. And I think it was mentioned on the forum by WG or during an Q&A. Beginner MM is no secret. Even beginners are told about that when they ask for advice on the forum.

I know.

 

I'm soon done with the study. You'll be able to read it as soon as I get it accepted :Smile_medal:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
Players
374 posts
14,714 battles
19 minutes ago, principat121 said:

No, a real rational person would look if there are somehow "incidents" that are contradicting any of Wargamings statements. Up to now there was not a single one. So, Wargamings statement stands as true, until proven otherwise. 

 

That is how logic works, my dear. 

WG system is not a "provably fair" system as far as I am aware. Therefore rational people can see that it is a trust system, you have to trust that its fair. It is up to the individual to have whatever level of trust in WG that they see fit. It would be WG that would need to prove otherwise, as operators in my industry have to. Until they do that it is unproven.

 

And politely, stop with the my dear stuff. Stick to the point.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,324 posts
8,007 battles
4 minutes ago, Chiledip said:

Stick to the point.

The point is, that your whole structure of arguing is one of someone tending towards conspiracy theories. End of story.

 

You try to keep a "serious face" on the surface, trying to "just ask questions" #, but there is nothing more behind. Yes, you can question everything in our world, sir, but please spare others your pointless "conclusions": because it is a waste of time and effort to talk about someones "feelings" without any actual facts to discuss. 

 

Better?!

 

 

#

Spoiler

1494118125476.jpg.4bdd9ca6bd850a3c58a3f898dd0680f1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,644 posts
14,316 battles

Result 10 games in Clemson: 6 Wins, 4 Losses. Reasonable result given that most games had double cvs each side, which kind of makes dd game a bit tougher and less influential.

 

388435593_Skarmavbild2019-09-15kl_18_59_06.thumb.png.62e5b29e3baa6acb0eb46a1ab6a060ae.png

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
Players
374 posts
14,714 battles
1 minute ago, principat121 said:

The point is, that your whole structure of arguing is one of someone tending towards conspiracy theories. End of story.

 

You try to keep a "serious face" on the surface, trying to "just ask questions" #, but there is nothing more behind. Yes, you can question everything in our world, sir, but please spare others your pointless "conclusions": because it is a waste of time and effort to talk about someones "feelings" without any actual facts to discuss. 

 

Better?!

 

 

#

  Reveal hidden contents

1494118125476.jpg.4bdd9ca6bd850a3c58a3f898dd0680f1.jpg

 

Oh the "conspiracy theory" card being played.

 

There are 2 conspiracy theories at play here. The first is the conspiracy that everything is totally random. Everything is above board. you are using your gut feelings to be on this side.

The second is that everything is rigged,lots of emotion in that 1 too. Both conspiracy theories not based on any evidence.

 

The true answer that any thinking person has is this. We don't know. Because we don't. Saying we do is not what I would expect from a "!scientist". I do evidence based facts only, not your conspiracy theory.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BS4]
Players
1,094 posts
6,161 battles
54 minutes ago, principat121 said:

No, a real rational person would look if there are somehow "incidents" that are contradicting any of Wargamings statements. Up to now there was not a single one.

Here is one.....

"Submarines will never be in wows"

 

Remember Please, WG is a business and will use  any tools at its deposal to make profit.

Just saying..

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,659 posts
245 battles
12 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Result 10 games in Clemson: 6 Wins, 4 Losses. Reasonable result given that most games had double cvs each side, which kind of makes dd game a bit tougher and less influential.

I had something worse 8 defeats 2 wins lol in miss georgia over 6-7 of those games i was 1st place and the other few games iw as 3-5th place. (even won by doing only 35k damage and won another game doing 6kills and almost 170k damage).

 

most of those games i did above 90k damage and 2 kills tried, to support dd's and contest caps and go for crossfires and flanking manuevours but jesus there is only soo much you can do.

 

Either way ill just assume i failed to do anything useful (except the game with that colorado that was just annoying 3 kills 130k-140k damage).

 

I understand what you mean, it does seem like it isn't random but at the same time it is i guess. (although there was that thing for world of tanks mm that was leaked sometime ago).

 

Oh well, game was doing my head in today anyways lol.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,324 posts
8,007 battles
6 minutes ago, SeaWolf7 said:

Here is one.....

"Submarines will never be in wows"

My sentence clearly refered to game mechanics and not game content. 

:cap_old:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,644 posts
14,316 battles
19 minutes ago, principat121 said:

The point is, that your whole structure of arguing is one of someone tending towards conspiracy theories. End of story.

 

You try to keep a "serious face" on the surface, trying to "just ask questions" #, but there is nothing more behind. Yes, you can question everything in our world, sir, but please spare others your pointless "conclusions": because it is a waste of time and effort to talk about someones "feelings" without any actual facts to discuss. 

 

Better?!

 

 

#

  Reveal hidden contents

1494118125476.jpg.4bdd9ca6bd850a3c58a3f898dd0680f1.jpg

 

Are you a bit paranoid about conspirationists..? :cap_hmm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,176 posts
6,442 battles
4 minutes ago, Chiledip said:

 

The true answer that any thinking person has is this. We don't know. Because we don't.

 

You can instead think of this from a logical standpoint. WG "could" indeed rig the RNG, or the MM, or anything and we wouldn't know. Any "proof" could then be further disputed as lies, a cover up etc etc.

 

So you can instead look at the why.

WG rigging games so I lose 10 games in a row isnt going to inspire me to spend money with them.

WG rigging games so I lose 10 games in a row isn't going to inspire any other player to spend money with them.

 

Since these threads come up on a semi regular basis, I'm yet to see any explanation of how WG making me lose 10 games in a row is going to make anyone spend money, or in fact provide WG with any kind of benefit at all.

 

Using Occam's Razor, where the simplest answer is probably correct, then since noone can seemingly come up with any kind of benefit to WG from making me lose 10 games in a row, then the most likely answer is that WG aren't rigging it so I lose 10 games in a row.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,644 posts
14,316 battles
10 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

 

You can instead think of this from a logical standpoint. WG "could" indeed rig the RNG, or the MM, or anything and we wouldn't know. Any "proof" could then be further disputed as lies, a cover up etc etc.

 

So you can instead look at the why.

WG rigging games so I lose 10 games in a row isnt going to inspire me to spend money with them.

WG rigging games so I lose 10 games in a row isn't going to inspire any other player to spend money with them.

 

Since these threads come up on a semi regular basis, I'm yet to see any explanation of how WG making me lose 10 games in a row is going to make anyone spend money, or in fact provide WG with any kind of benefit at all.

 

Using Occam's Razor, where the simplest answer is probably correct, then since noone can seemingly come up with any kind of benefit to WG from making me lose 10 games in a row, then the most likely answer is that WG aren't rigging it so I lose 10 games in a row.

The issue here is that you presume that someone is claiming WG is rigging the game to make the player lose 10 games in a row. Then you ask - why?

 

It could be something like lowering or increasing the hit chance or making citadels occurring less or more often. Why? To make your, or the opposing player experience better?

 

What happens when you've had 10 straight games as low tier? You get 'premium MM' as high tier. Some poor bastard will have to take your place as low tier instead. The objective isn't to screw the bastard over, but to give you better MM for one game or so.

 

MM isn't absolutely Random, there a lots of rules governing which teams you end up in. This doesn't mean WG is conspiring against anyone.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
Players
374 posts
14,714 battles
1 minute ago, Xevious_Red said:

 

You can instead think of this from a logical standpoint. WG "could" indeed rig the RNG, or the MM, or anything and we wouldn't know. Any "proof" could then be further disputed as lies, a cover up etc etc.

 

So you can instead look at the why.

WG rigging games so I lose 10 games in a row isnt going to inspire me to spend money with them.

WG rigging games so I lose 10 games in a row isn't going to inspire any other player to spend money with them.

 

Since these threads come up on a semi regular basis, I'm yet to see any explanation of how WG making me lose 10 games in a row is going to make anyone spend money, or in fact provide WG with any kind of benefit at all.

 

Using rOccam's Razo, where the simplest answer is probably correct, then since noone can seemingly come up with any kind of benefit to WG from making me lose 10 games in a row, then the most likely answer is that WG aren't rigging it so I lose 10 games in a row.

I am not here to speculate about things that could happen. I am not suggesting that WG is rigging the game in this way or that way. I do not have the data that they have and don't know how they are interpretting that to make the game as profitable as it can be. All I know is that they are a company and like all companies profit and sustainability is likely to be king. Having blind trust in companies to be fair is probably not a good idea. Even companies who are regulated are found to be manipulating things and unregulated industry is often the wild west (like the csgo gambling).

 

I am talking in a general way. WG is not regulated and as far as I know the algorithms used cannot be verified as provably fair. If i am to use Occam's Razor I would come to a different conclusion to what you have. I would find it very hard to believe that WG wouldn't use every legal means at their disposal to maximise profits like every other large company does. They would have to be an exception to the rule if they didn't.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,176 posts
6,442 battles
13 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

The issue here is that you presume that someone is claiming WG is rigging the game to make the player lose 10 games in a row. Then you ask - why?

 

It could be something like lowering or increasing the hit chance or making citadels occurring less or more often. Why? To make your, or the opposing player experience better?

 

What happens when you've had 10 straight games as low tier? You get 'premium MM' as high tier. Some poor bastard will have to take your place as low tier instead. The objective isn't to screw the bastard over, but to give you better MM for one game or so.

 

MM isn't absolutely Random, there a lots of rules governing which teams you end up in. This doesn't mean WG is conspiring against anyone.

Your opening post was about losing 4 games in a row. Nearly every "MM rigged" thread is because someone has lost a bunch of games in a row, with the arguement being that WG is making them lose games deliberately.

 

They could indeed adjust the citadel chance etc (and @Chiledip if I were going to rig anything, this would be what I'd do - get bad players to have better results so they're more likely to spend money).

 

But the way that would be done would be to affect the bad player. So if WG felt XXX_Pu55yD3str0y3r_XXX  needed a boost, and to give them better RNG then you'd only encounter them in one game. So while it may affect that particular game, it wouldnt cause a streak.

 

 

So i can totally see an arguememt for rigging RNG to give bad players a hand - it would have a benefit to WG (bad player more likely to purchase), and the tools are already there - there's already modifiers to dispersion when aiming at a certain target etc.

What it wouldn't do is cause you to lose a load of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,644 posts
14,316 battles
20 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

Your opening post was about losing 4 games in a row. Nearly every "MM rigged" thread is because someone has lost a bunch of games in a row, with the arguement being that WG is making them lose games deliberately.

If you read the opening post again, the whole post, with sort of an open mind, you'll understand that me losing 4 games in a row just is the starting point for the experiment. Since nearly every "MM rigged" is about this, I set up this little test - as explained in the opening post.

Quote

 

They could indeed adjust the citadel chance etc (and @Chiledip if I were going to rig anything, this would be what I'd do - get bad players to have better results so they're more likely to spend money).

 

But the way that would be done would be to affect the bad player. So if WG felt XXX_Pu55yD3str0y3r_XXX  needed a boost, and to give them better RNG then you'd only encounter them in one game. So while it may affect that particular game, it wouldnt cause a streak.

 

So i can totally see an arguememt for rigging RNG to give bad players a hand - it would have a benefit to WG (bad player more likely to purchase), and the tools are already there - there's already modifiers to dispersion when aiming at a certain target etc.

What it wouldn't do is cause you to lose a load of games.

It could increase your lose rate if you're at the other side of the coin. I gave you an example in the post you quoted.

 

I agree in pretty much all @Chiledip has written. I'm not into any conspiracy theory and I've no reason to speculate how or why things could be manipulated. I thought it was a decent test to do and I didn't lose much in doing it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
Players
374 posts
14,714 battles
10 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

Your opening post was about losing 4 games in a row. Nearly every "MM rigged" thread is because someone has lost a bunch of games in a row, with the arguement being that WG is making them lose games deliberately.

 

They could indeed adjust the citadel chance etc (and @Chiledip if I were going to rig anything, this would be what I'd do - get bad players to have better results so they're more likely to spend money).

 

But the way that would be done would be to affect the bad player. So if WG felt XXX_Pu55yD3str0y3r_XXX  needed a boost, and to give them better RNG then you'd only encounter them in one game. So while it may affect that particular game, it wouldnt cause a streak.

 

 

So i can totally see an arguememt for rigging RNG to give bad players a hand - it would have a benefit to WG (bad player more likely to purchase), and the tools are already there - there's already modifiers to dispersion when aiming at a certain target etc.

What it wouldn't do is cause you to lose a load of games.

the problem here is we are in the realm of "what ifs". Its conjecture. Which is fine if it's discussed as such.

 

For example Wg may have data that suggests that certain players play more/spend more if they experience a certain thing. For example, 1 group of users may spend more if they experience good and bad streaky runs. They may see and act upon any user's trends and tendencies to maximise profits. Not saying that they do, just a for example.

People's behaviour can be strange and is often unknown to themselves. I was mentoring a poker player a few years ago/ He was a very good player in a lot of ways but only achieved a 15% win rate. When i looked at his numbers in more depth I saw the problem. He played 30 tournaments a day when everything was going badly and was playing on tilt. On the days where he was in control and playing well, he averaged playing 10 per day. He played much more because of his bad run and spent more. When he was successful he became satisfied and switched off. Frustration fuelled him, success took away his energy. Once he played a fixed number  of tournaments he ran at 40% profit for many years  

 

We do not have the data but be assured WG do. Very unlikely that they are not acting upon it, in fact it would be negligent to their owners/shareholders if they didn't.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Players
433 posts
9,408 battles
4 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Just look at peoples WR or the whole WR distribution:

 

The interesting question is, why doesn't it follow the standard normal distribution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
81 posts
2,126 battles

Win Rate tells far from the real story though.

I've been using Matchmaking Monitor recently and it can bear little relation to what happens in front of you, for example, yesterday on EU server I was playing Neptune, played 7 battles and in 5 of them my team carried a 10% win rate advantage into the battle, we lost all 5 of those battles, 3 of them horrifically badly.

Overall i would agree that a team with a higher win rate is more likely to prevail but it is far from consistent.

Interestingly, and this probably says a lot about me, my Neptune WR on EU is a paltry 43% but improving (roughly 100 battles I think).  On NA I am well over 63% with Neptune, the only difference is i have a 19pt Captain on NA and and 18 on EU.

It's a very difficult job to work out how to improve MM but clearly win rate and PR are not the whole story so I do not have an answer and I doubt anyone has an infallible one either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,324 posts
8,007 battles
15 minutes ago, Altsak said:

The interesting question is, why doesn't it follow the standard normal distribution?

Do you see that with your bare eyes? Or couldn't you fit the data with a gaussian distribution?

Can you show or point out where exactly the data doesn't follow a normal distribution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
539 posts

A thing who was never addressed by WG is the horrible situations on high tiers ( +T7) when one enter a MM in his FIRST GAME in that ship, with NO UPGRADES AT ALL, that is, STOCK, and will always face ships 2 Tiers upper , fully upgraded.

 

One have 2 options then - to stay away, at max distance, because you have no range, no hull, etc) OR, to stay near a bigger ship, in a hope the other guy will sponge the fire for you...

 

I will love to see, someday, a better formula for STOCK ships, like in other games , when, until first upgrade, at least, you are not up tiered so badly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
3,609 posts
10,793 battles

Hi all,

 

17 minutes ago, Logan_MountStuart said:

Win Rate tells far from the real story though.

I've been using Matchmaking Monitor recently and it can bear little relation to what happens in front of you, for example, yesterday on EU server I was playing Neptune, played 7 battles and in 5 of them my team carried a 10% win rate advantage into the battle, we lost all 5 of those battles, 3 of them horrifically badly.

Overall i would agree that a team with a higher win rate is more likely to prevail but it is far from consistent.

Interestingly, and this probably says a lot about me, my Neptune WR on EU is a paltry 43% but improving (roughly 100 battles I think).  On NA I am well over 63% with Neptune, the only difference is i have a 19pt Captain on NA and and 18 on EU.

It's a very difficult job to work out how to improve MM but clearly win rate and PR are not the whole story so I do not have an answer and I doubt anyone has an infallible one either.

 

Did you run "old" "Matchmaking monitor" that list only WinRate in current ship or new BETA "Matchmaking Monitor" that lists all stats?

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,324 posts
8,007 battles
10 minutes ago, SEN_SEN_Channel_Portugue said:

A thing who was never addressed by WG is the horrible situations on high tiers ( +T7) when one enter a MM in his FIRST GAME in that ship, with NO UPGRADES AT ALL, that is, STOCK, and will always face ships 2 Tiers upper , fully upgraded.

This statement is not true and you know it.

Please, refrain from backing up your case by lies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWTP]
Players
1,029 posts
8,977 battles
6 hours ago, loppantorkel said:

WG is improving the MM and try to improve the experience of the game all the time, at least that's the premise here.

Second thing: the MM is not completely random. Tiers, classes, uptiering etc makes for a better game and that's fine.

What we don't know is if there's any other tampering with the MM. Many suspicions and tinfoil-hat conspiracies are thrown around, but it's difficult to test if there's any truth to what some players experience. It could all come down to RNG and bad luck, or lack of self-awareness.

 

So this isn't going to be a test that prove anything but it might be something to try and perhaps get an indication toward something.

 

I'm currently at a 4 game lose streak in which I've been 3rd, 1st, 1st, and 1st, last game was a carry that could not be won. I'm well above 60%WR in these ships. Does this prove anything? No, absolutely not, but here's the interesting part - I'll continue to play Clemson as a reference ship for 10 games. I'm winning 2/3rds of every game in Clemson playing solo - so far at least. Will I continue to lose or will I be able to keep going at a similar rate?

 

Not entirely scientific but I think it the best test to date anyone has offered to do.

 

If you have feelings about getting crap MM at the moment - post your streak, pick your best ship and inform in the post the number of games you'll play in said ship and post your results after the games are done.

 

Feel free to post any objections or other thoughts about this.

 


Edit: Test 1 finished -

  Hide contents

 

Result 10 games in Clemson: 6 Wins, 4 Losses. Reasonable result given that most games had double cvs each side, which kind of makes dd game a bit tougher and less influential.

 

WG 1 - 0 Conspiracy

 

 

As soon as you posted this on forums, WG knew and they flipped the switch. Simple, next time do it in secret, do not tell anybody, even yourself!!!!  :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×