Experimenting with MM and lose streaks

[loppantorkel]

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 -

Spoiler

 

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

 

 

[principat121]

23 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Many suspicions and tinfoil-hat conspiracies are thrown around

You mean like this:

23 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

the MM is not completely random

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Not entirely scientific

That's for sure!

 

21 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

but I think

Stop thinking and start learning! I.e. grab a book about math and try to understand how chance works. 

 

22 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

the best test to date anyone has offered to do

No, definetly not. There were many test done, way better then your conspiracy here. Google is your friend. 

[loppantorkel]

9 minutes ago, principat121 said:

You mean like this:

 

 

That's for sure!

In the following sentence I wrote some examples why completely random MM can be disregarded. How do you fail to understand the basics. The MM takes several things into account before the game starts. Ships aren't just randomly jumbled. It's obvious to all but you apparently. Dear lord, try to get a clue before trying to patronize, you just look foolish.

9 minutes ago, principat121 said:

Stop thinking and start learning! I.e. grab a book about math and try to understand how chance works. 

 

No, definetly not. There were many test done, way better then your conspiracy here. Google is your friend. 

So.. no value from you as usual.

[Azalgor]

 Before the CV rework, everyone sayd that a CV has an immense impact on the games outcome, so that means that after 1,3k battles in my old Hakuryu and 22% WR in it, there was only that many teams that could prove it wrong, showing that your chances of losing were 4 times greater than winning. Dont think much changed to better since.

54 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

I'll continue to play Clemson as a reference ship for 10 games

I think my numbers are more accurate.

[BanzaiPiluso]

Do a 1000 games with the same ship.

[ColonelPete]

1 hour 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.

You do not need to do any test.

Just look at peoples WR or the whole WR distribution:

[LoveYouTooBuddy]

I read the first post, but kinda don't fully understand it... 

 

32 minutes ago, Winged_Cat_Dormant said:

Do a 1000 games with the same ship.

I've done that! Even more than 1000 games! And I keep playing it... now what?

 

I used to play only one ship again and again and.... And you kinda can sense when it will be bad losing streak day. Usually if I keep on playing I keep on losing all day in those. I suspect losing a lot made me grumpy and contributed to me losing even more. But the next day I usually get an easy winning streak to even it out.

 

Recently I decided to try follow a little rule, if I lose two games badly (steamrolls) one after another I (try to) stop playing for a while. 

I'm delighted to report that, by following it for the past two weeks, I've managed to avoid major losing streaks! Also I feel unusually jovial and happy... 

 

 

[loppantorkel]

46 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You do not need to do any test.

Just look at peoples WR or the whole WR distribution:

What does it tell you? And why are people afraid of a little test? I've got no preconceived conclusions. I've explained the simple test beforehand. I've not stated there will be any proofs at the end. Neither of us knows fully what goes into the MM. Some people here are very suspicious of the MM. I'll do my games in Clemson and report the results.

 

It's reasonable to expect me winning at least 50%, but if I don't, I'm not concluding WG is tampering with the MM or anything. If I win 2/10 games - that would be odd, imo, considering my WR in Clemson and me informing you beforehand of the series I'm doing. Not sure what odds there are of me winning 2/10 games in Clemson in a announced game series.

 

What strange is some people's negativity toward this.

[GarrusBrutus]

54 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You do not need to do any test.

Just look at peoples WR or the whole WR distribution:

-snip-

33% after 5000 battles....

[Bear__Necessities]

59 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You do not need to do any test.

Just look at peoples WR or the whole WR distribution:

There’s only 101 players in my range bracket.... 😶

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

What does it tell you? And why are people afraid of a little test? I've got no preconceived conclusions. I've explained the simple test beforehand. I've not stated there will be any proofs at the end. Neither of us knows fully what goes into the MM. Some people here are very suspicious of the MM. I'll do my games in Clemson and report the results.

 

It's reasonable to expect me winning at least 50%, but if I don't, I'm not concluding WG is tampering with the MM or anything. If I win 2/10 games - that would be odd, imo, considering my WR in Clemson and me informing you beforehand of the series I'm doing. Not sure what odds there are of me winning 2/10 games in Clemson in a announced game series.

 

What strange is some people's negativity toward this.

That the results are as expected.

You can test all you want, that is your time. I find it just strange to do tests on stuff that is obvious. Especially when you say that the test will not provide any proofs. Then what is the point?

3 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

33% after 5000 battles....

There are players who like to troll their teams.

[loppantorkel]

18 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That the results are as expected.

You can test all you want, that is your time. I find it just strange to do tests on stuff that is obvious. Especially when you say that the test will not provide any proofs. Then what is the point?

You're taking for granted that the games and MM are fair at all times, without any proofs. Some people are convinced WG is screwing them over for some reason, also this without any proofs. They come to the forum with bad lose streaks and believe the MM is against them.

 

I don't think there's any conspiracy, but some gaming sessions I can potato through and win by getting carried, while others I can't win despite doing what I can to carry. This can all be down to RNG, luck, bad mood or weather conditions ...or WG has a formula in the MM for whatever reasons.

 

The point of this is attempting to get an indication. I'm on a lose streak - can I turn it around using a carry ship at low tiers or am I screwed for whatever reason? It's simple but a decent tool since I've accumulated enough games in Clemson to not get too strange results in a 10 game series. Still a chance to lose all but a few games, but that's why I ask others to try the same. It's not a huge effort.

[SeaWolf7]

1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

You do not need to do any test.

Just look at peoples WR or the whole WR distribution:

So 50% of the player base has a win rate of 48%? For dum dums like me can you explain what we are supposed to be looking at here pete? Thanks.

[ColonelPete]

1 minute ago, loppantorkel said:

You're taking for granted that the games and MM are fair at all times, without any proofs. Some people are convinced WG is screwing them over for some reason, also this without any proofs. They come to the forum with bad lose streaks and believe the MM is against them.

As I said, I look at the player´s stats. That is proof enough.

If there were tampering, then all or at least more people would experience it. But when you look at the players complaning, everything is normal.

[ColonelPete]

Just now, SeaWolf7 said:

So 50% of the player base has a win rate of 48%? For dum dums like me can you explain what we are supposed to be looking at here pete? Thanks.

You see the number of people having a specific WR (total WR for Random, not solo) within a specific battle number range.

The number of people having a specific WR number are totalled over all battle numbers ("total").

Under "pecentile" you can see how many players, relative to the total number, have that WR or higher.

 

The list counts only players with more than a 100 games, 882k accounts in total.

 

If you look at the entries and numbers, you see that the distribution of WR follows a bell curve, as expected.

The number of players at the extreme end (over 60%, below 40%) of the table is quite low. The majority (96,4%) of players is found between these numbers, as expected.

 

[_DemonGuard_]

47 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then what is the point?

The best reason for seal clubbing in a Clemson: I'm doing it for science! Maybe we can get someone doing it in a Hosho, just for comparison?

[Chiledip]

3 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.

I question RNG randomness in general. As a poker player I have to. This game has alot of RNG in it and could be the easiest way of achieving balance, A little tweak here and there could achieve things without being provable. I have to trust the site I am playing on. Some sites have proven to not be trustworthy and many are trustworthy. The question is, do you trust WG? Have they given you enough evidence that you can see that it is trustworthy. 

 

You are right to question and to have suspicion. Sadly these days people have been trained not to question things and to belittle those who do. People are taught "what" to think these days and never learn "how" to think. From what I know of the MM system, which could be wrong,you need blind faith in WG to believe that it is fair. It isn't an open system which can be looked at, it hasn't been given the thumbs up by an independent trustworthy body for being truly random. We only have the word of WG. You are stupid if you don't question it. Not saying it is unfair, I am saying none of us know!

 

Whatever it is or isn't is difficult to prove either way. There is a distribution in WR which suggests that if there is an "equaliser" in the MM system, it might tighten up the distribution but it isn't strong, if it is there at all. The point is that we don't know. We don't know if the citadels that we do, don't get aand receive are 100% random or the gaps in our torps. That all comes down to our trust in WG. So why you get the "tinfoil hat" comments,it is a sign of the times that we live where people can't think for themselves.

 

From my point of view, WG haven't provided me with enough evidence that I wouldn't be suspicious. From what I have seen of the company over the years I am right not to trust them 100% and would be more surprised if they weren't playing with RNG in some ways than if they were. Either way it is insane to blindly trust them, as it is with most companies. 

[Xevious_Red]

The biggest arguement AGAINST "WG is rigging it so I lose!" is simply how do WG profit from this?

 

Lets say WG were rigging the game against player A. Repeatedly make them lose. Is player A likely to suddenly spend a bunch of money? Not really, they're just going to be annoyed instead.

Is player B going to spend a ton of money because player A is being kept down? No.

 

Its not like there's a big cash prize if you hit 70% that they need to stop people reaching.

 

 

WG can make lots of money releasing ships that are blatently OP - they sell like hot cakes.

WG can make loads of money having OP ships that cant be bought available as a "jackpot" on loot crates. People's gambling addictions keep them buying boxes hoping to win.

 

I can't see how making a particular player lose is going to turn WG a profit.

 

[ColonelPete]

2 minutes ago, Chiledip said:

From my point of view, WG haven't provided me with enough evidence that I wouldn't be suspicious. From what I have seen of the company over the years I am right not to trust them 100% and would be more surprised if they weren't playing with RNG in some ways than if they were. Either way it is insane to blindly trust them, as it is with most companies. 

People will not accept any evidence. Period.

I asked this multiple times, but there is nothing WG can show people mistrusting WG.

Anything that WG shows as proof of innoncence is immediately under suspicion of being tampered with.

[principat121]

4 minutes ago, Chiledip said:

From what I know of the MM system, which could be wrong,you need blind faith in WG to believe that it is fair.

Wargaming never ever stated that the MM-system is fair. Or has the purpurse to be fair. Get your facts straight: The MM is nothing more then an algorithm to fill up two teams, based on the "content" of the queue for a specific battle tier. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Chiledip said:

we live where people can't think for themselves

Quite contrary my dear. I am a man of science. If someone "thinks" or "feels" that there is maybe something suspicious, then it is up to this person to do the proper work to verify or falsify his starting hypothesis. 

[loppantorkel]

19 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

As I said, I look at the player´s stats. That is proof enough.

If there were tampering, then all or at least more people would experience it. But when you look at the players complaning, everything is normal.

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.

[lossi_2018]

If WG cared about what people thought more than what the company wants (profit) they wouldn't go ahead with the resetting the lines plan after pretending they canceled it (it- something similar anyway) or the fact not bringing -bringing subs in game etc. Untrustworthy is their middle name but that don't mean the game is bad. Its actually pretty good. 

[Chiledip]

1 minute ago, principat121 said:

 

 

 

Quite contrary my dear. I am a man of science. If someone "thinks" or "feels" that there is maybe something suspicious, then it is up to this person to do the proper work to verify or falsify his starting hypothesis. 

The RNG has not been verified by any independent body as being random has it?  Therefore any rational human being would say that whether it is random or not is unknown. We have no proof either way. What a company claim should not be the starting hypothesis as there is no evidence of this.

[principat121]

1 minute ago, Chiledip said:

The RNG has not been verified by any independent body as being random has it?  Therefore any rational human being would say that whether it is random or not is unknown. We have no proof either way. What a company claim should not be the starting hypothesis as there is no evidence of this.

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. 

[Xevious_Red]

2 minutes ago, Chiledip said:

The RNG has not been verified by any independent body as being random has it?  Therefore any rational human being would say that whether it is random or not is unknown. We have no proof either way. What a company claim should not be the starting hypothesis as there is no evidence of this.

Because why would they bother?

 

The people that think RNG is random wouldn't care about the results.

The people that think RNG is rigged wouldnt be convinced anyway - they'd just move onto "well how do we know that they're actually independent and you didnt just pay them off?" Or "why would you go to the effort to prove its random? What have you got to hide?"

 

Besides, since people tend to spend more when they're happier if you were going to rig RNG then you'd be better rigging the bad players to give them better results and more satisfaction, not rigging it so a particular player loses a bunch of times.