A question

[MadBadDave]

You start off playing WOWS, you improve increasing your WR, you get within 20 of a pure 50 % WR, bang all of a sudden a losing streak, and your team mates are bigger potatoes than normal, you manage to crawl back to where you were; bang once again the same thing, weeks past, and you finally manage to get to 50% WR, having not lost a game in 4 days, and as soon as you get to 50% bang  losing streak, but like all the other "bangs" games that are not even close; total landslides (1 or 2, if in any red losses), and yet you recall said 4 days of wins being close and nowhere near a land slide.

 

Question is; what do you call that?, it's certainly not down to luck, skill ?, I've intentionally played at exactly the same time the 4 days, so the kids are at school and day workers at work.

 

Just as WG say MM is fixed, I say (driving a bottom tiered T7), conspiracy theories come about from certain events ;-).

[pra3y]

I call bs. I worked my way up from a sub 40% winrate to 50+% winrate.

 

If anything its like a test. Whether or not you're good enough to carry a team. If you do congrats, you make it to the next percentile. If not, tough luck.

[ColonelPete]

5 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

Question is; what do you call that?, it's certainly not down to luck, skill ?, I've intentionally played at exactly the same time the 4 days, so the kids are at school and day workers at work.

 

Just as WG say MM is fixed, I say (driving a bottom tiered T7), conspiracy theories come about from certain events ;-).

Yes, some people are only good enough for 50% WR.

A LOT of players are much better. Maybe you should ask them what they do different, instead of resorting to conspiracy theories.

[xxNihilanxx]

If you were at 45.47% WR, for example, and the events you describe occured you would not really notice. It is only because you are "obsessing" on a figure that is, from the games point of view, arbitrary that you are assigning any significance to what you are seeing. Humans love round numbers and so you only notice it now. The same will have happened at almost all non-round numbers. This is an anthropic issue.

[Tyrendian89]

10 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

Question is; what do you call that?

it's called "Humanity, by and large, being a bunch of idiots with no clue how to interpret what's going on in the world around them"

[genosse]

Yeah, sometimes I also feel like someone is pulling strings in the background, but I think it really just comes down to luck with matchmaking. 

WG would not benefit from artificially decreasing your winrate, and by that the fun you have with game, and by that, the money you are going to spend.

 

I had a 60 % solo winrate in WoT, before I stopped and started playing WoWs 4 years ago, and I was super annoyed that I was unable to achieve similar results in that game - and to be honest with you, sometimes I still am.

 

I think the only tried and true solution for a stagnating WR is to play in divisions. This is not a game where a solo player can carry half the team, like you could in WoT, so you have to team up.

 

But since I still play solo only, I am trying to make my peace with the fact, that I will forever hover around 50-54 % WR, or that I have to disregard the stats entirely.

 

On the other hand, the will to improve is too great, and personal stagnation kills the fun for me, so there will still be many days where I will quit the client because: "God damn there is no point playing with those idiots, f**k this game". Luckily, there is still much I can learn, so there is hope. ;)

 

It's probably part of the charm. Anyway, I can relate.

 

 

[HateYouTooBuddy]

29 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

You start off playing WOWS, you improve increasing your WR, you get within 20 of a pure 50 % WR, bang all of a sudden a losing streak, and your team mates are bigger potatoes than normal, you manage to crawl back to where you were; bang once again the same thing, weeks past, and you finally manage to get to 50% WR, having not lost a game in 4 days, and as soon as you get to 50% bang  losing streak, but like all the other "bangs" games that are not even close; total landslides (1 or 2, if in any red losses), and yet you recall said 4 days of wins being close and nowhere near a land slide.

 

Question is; what do you call that?, it's certainly not down to luck, skill ?, I've intentionally played at exactly the same time the 4 days, so the kids are at school and day workers at work.

 

Just as WG say MM is fixed, I say (driving a bottom tiered T7), conspiracy theories come about from certain events ;-).

Yep it's fixed, all is fixed to keep the proletariat users down! Workers Players of the world, unite! Down with the corporate imperialism!

Also they mine bitcoins in the main menu. My video card is on fire all the time, coincidence? I think not!

[Chips_uk]

34 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

Question is; what do you call that?, it's certainly not down to luck, skill ?

It's called "Sods law".

 

Also, stop worrying about the stats. You should be playing for fun, not stats. It's entirely possible to have a crackingly good game and still lose. But if you focus too harshly upon the losses then it can be harmful to having fun.

 

Caveat not every game you lose is fun, nor is every game you win. Balance :) If you really get cheesed off, drop down a few tiers to play a few games. 

[Bear_Necessities]

So rigged. I mean. I have not consistently improved in all areas, no improvement at all...

 

 

So. Rigged.

[thiextar]

38 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

You start off playing WOWS, you improve increasing your WR, you get within 20 of a pure 50 % WR, bang all of a sudden a losing streak, and your team mates are bigger potatoes than normal, you manage to crawl back to where you were; bang once again the same thing, weeks past, and you finally manage to get to 50% WR, having not lost a game in 4 days, and as soon as you get to 50% bang  losing streak, but like all the other "bangs" games that are not even close; total landslides (1 or 2, if in any red losses), and yet you recall said 4 days of wins being close and nowhere near a land slide.

 

Question is; what do you call that?, it's certainly not down to luck, skill ?, I've intentionally played at exactly the same time the 4 days, so the kids are at school and day workers at work.

 

Just as WG say MM is fixed, I say (driving a bottom tiered T7), conspiracy theories come about from certain events ;-).

from random import randint

def streak(numrolls = 1000, runthreshold = 7):
    rolls = (randint(1,2) for x in range(numrolls))
    streaklen = 0
    prev = 0
    for roll in rolls:
        if roll == prev:
            streaklen += 1
        else:
            streaklen = 1
        if streaklen >= runthreshold:
            return False
        prev = roll
    return True

def simulate(numtrials):
    return sum(1 for x in range(numtrials) if streak())/float(numtrials)

print(simulate(1000))

this is a script that simulates you playing 1000 random battles at 50% wr, it outputs the chance to NOT get 7 losses in a row atleast once during those 1000 matches. that chance is so low, that during a sample size of 1000 trial runs, it outputs a zero percent chance.

 

tl;dr streaks happen in a random system, get over it.

[Leo_Apollo11]

HI all,

 

42 minutes ago, MadBadDave said:

You start off playing WOWS, you improve increasing your WR, you get within 20 of a pure 50 % WR, bang all of a sudden a losing streak, and your team mates are bigger potatoes than normal, you manage to crawl back to where you were; bang once again the same thing, weeks past, and you finally manage to get to 50% WR, having not lost a game in 4 days, and as soon as you get to 50% bang  losing streak, but like all the other "bangs" games that are not even close; total landslides (1 or 2, if in any red losses), and yet you recall said 4 days of wins being close and nowhere near a land slide.

 

Question is; what do you call that?, it's certainly not down to luck, skill ?, I've intentionally played at exactly the same time the 4 days, so the kids are at school and day workers at work.

 

Just as WG say MM is fixed, I say (driving a bottom tiered T7), conspiracy theories come about from certain events ;-).

 

It is usual observation bias... we all had it... my "magic" limit was once 54%...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[xxNihilanxx]

5 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

HI all,

 

 

It is usual observation bias... we all had it... my "magic" limit was once 54%...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

Yup, me too.

 

Then again at 55%, at 56%, 57%, 58%, 59% and I'm fully expecting it to happen at 60%.

 

The fluctuations are exactly the same everywhere between the nice round figures but we humans don't notice those.

[thiextar]

11 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Yup, me too.

 

Then again at 55%, at 56%, 57%, 58%, 59% and I'm fully expecting it to happen at 60%.

 

The fluctuations are exactly the same everywhere between the nice round figures but we humans don't notice those.

this ^^

 

Humans are stupid, and not capable of anything related to randomness. ask 10 people to place themselves randomly across a room, they will all spread themselves at equal intervals, not very random.

[genosse]

52 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Code

Sorry for being too lazy to look it up, but which language is that? Python?

 

In any case, this explains it very well, nice job! :)

[thiextar]

Just now, genosse said:

Sorry for being too lazy to look it up, but which language is that? Python?

 

In any case, this explains it very well, nice job! :)

yup, python ^^

[bushwacker001]

1 hour ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Yup, me too.

 

Then again at 55%, at 56%, 57%, 58%, 59% and I'm fully expecting it to happen at 60%.

 

The fluctuations are exactly the same everywhere between the nice round figures but we humans don't notice those.

did for me the last 2 weeks mate......hit 59.99 4 times only to drop back 4 times...finally got a good run going and smashed it .......not that I give a chit :)

 

 

I also refrained from getting the Kami out to make sure.....stayed in T7-10

[Excavatus]

Please use the existing MM thread for asking "How MM is rigged!"

Gd'day!