RNG not really rng

[BoxOfAngryBees]

Ive been noticing some .... peculiar behavior with RNG. Its already known that the MM, with full intention, sets teams up for steamroll. Its also already known that, more or less, alot of engagements are decided by the type of ship, giving a rock-paper-scissors feel (more a sign of bad balance than the other but MM still plays a crucial role).

 

What ive been seeing is that in certain games, RNG with shells, bombs and the like is .... skewed. In games with steamrolls, (so, bout 95% of games) I see the steamrolling team getting consistant good hits with ships and carriers alike as well as getting more fires and floods. The other team, getting steamrolled, often have salvos with holes just big enough to not hit the target, even at point blank range sometimes. Or, more recently, Im noticing that my monarch simply isnt getting as many fires as it should, statistically as well as getting citadel damage where I really shouldnt, at least not in the frequency Im getting them.

 

Is anybody else noticing this or am I simply a bias, bitter old man?

 

edit: just to clarify, im not only talking about losing and being bitter - watching replays i really do see a correlation, steamrolling ships getting citadel after citadel but the defending ships missing more than they should and having worse games generally without any real reason

[159Hunter]

So show us the numbers to back up your correlation claim.

[Strapps]

43 minutes ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

Ive been noticing some .... peculiar behavior with RNG. Its already known ...

That's where your comprehensive analysis fell apart for me. 

[BoxOfAngryBees]

 

I havent been taking down notes or marking up excel tables, its more of a feeling for me than anything (Im not the type of person to do that kind of thing, this is simply a game for me, after all) but I do sometimes look at replays to see how and why.

 

Things like me in a bizzy hitting a tad too often or getting a citadel while being lucky with enemy salvos, even surviving italian SAP salvos a tad too healthily for what they are - or like my atrocious monarch, but definitely not limited to her, getting BB-sized holes in my salvos at 7 km range while one game later nailing everything at 10km, both more consistantly than it being purely rng.... correlating in a loss/win more often than a simple cascading effect would suggest.

Im also seeing devastating strikes on the steamrollers more often than on the steamrolled ... its much like the inverse of the cruisers Outnumbered skill, it being ever so slight but noticeable I feel.

 

Im not trying to vent or throw a hissy-fit here, simply asking if people are noticing the same thing.

 

In the end, it really doesnt matter I suppose, i have great games in ships and bad games, good stats in ships and bad - but it still irks me

[lossi_2018]

WG is secretly tinkering wit the code always. Nothing will surprise me as we don't know how everything is set up.

[Kiagy]

29 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

So show us the numbers to back up your correlation claim.

He could say; prove me wrong tbf

[BoxOfAngryBees]

8 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

WG is secretly tinkering wit the code always. Nothing will surprise me as we don't know how everything is set up.

Thats just the thing - if I were to don my most-money-for-least-work top-hat, I would do exactly that. Fixing the outcome of games like that would mean less relevance to actual balance. It would mean an almost all-encompassing work-load relief on all fronts, saving massive amounts of money and effort because ... well, you really dont have to balance finely thanks to something like this. This would also make the most broken aspects of the game seem less broken - even in an op ship with op abilities, a roflstomp is still gonna smush yer noggin.

 

but like I said - its not like it really matters, the game is still fun as-is (though that is becoming less so, thanks to certain mechanics). Though it would effect the feeling of the game quite a bit i suppose.

[BoxOfAngryBees]

although i should just shut it - dont want to give weegee any crooked ideas x)

[xe_N_on]

Could also be bad net-coding and server-stability. I had situations where I was broadside 4 km to another DD (where missing almost is impossible) and apparently missed several volley completely, beside aiming was correct. 

 

In other online-games, e.g.. MWO, there where several issues with hit registration. I wouldn't wonder, if there are hit-reg- and auto-aiming-issues in WoWs, too.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

Is anybody else noticing this or am I simply a bias, bitter old man?

Yes. I thought that I was the culprit. While this still could be definitively the case, I noticed this in ops as well. And there....let's just say that....is highly unlikely. Maybe the desync got worse, idk. But it is there. Up to the point that affects my aim. 

 

21 minutes ago, lossi_2018 said:

WG is secretly tinkering wit the code always. Nothing will surprise me as we don't know how everything is set up.

Hi Iossi :)

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

1. Its already known that the MM, with full intention, sets teams up for steamroll.
2. What ive been seeing is that in certain games, RNG with shells, bombs and the like is .... skewed. In games with steamrolls, (so, bout 95% of games) I see the steamrolling team getting consistant good hits with ships and carriers alike as well as getting more fires and floods. The other team, getting steamrolled, often have salvos with holes just big enough to not hit the target, even at point blank range sometimes.

1. Nope. That happens only in the imagination of some players
2. My RNG does not feel different, even when my team loses badly, but I had bad luck when my team steamrolled the enemy

When you have steamrolls 95% of the time, you should reconsider your actions.

 

30 minutes ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

 

I havent been taking down notes or marking up excel tables, its more of a feeling for me than anything (Im not the type of person to do that kind of thing, this is simply a game for me, after all) but I do sometimes look at replays to see how and why.

You had a feeling™? Why did you not say so? Then it must be true

[Bad_Players_Are_Toxic]

1 hour ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

Its already known that the MM, with full intention, sets teams up for steamroll

Care you back up your claim with evidence or are you one of THOSE kinds of people?

 

36 minutes ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

its more of a feeling for me than anything

Oh you ARE one of THOSE people.

 

I feel your feelings are wrong.

 

In fact, i feel like your feelings are making actual accusations about some kind of shadowy MM control with literally no evidence?

 

I feel like that is a red flag about you and not taking WG devs feelings into consideration is emotionally selfish...

 

Now excuse me, i feel hungry.

[BoxOfAngryBees]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You had a feeling™? Why did you not say so? Then it must be true 

... what?

Im not saying its true - if I knew it to be true I would be writing very differently (like the style i wrote in your first bullet point) ... having a feeling doesnt mean Im throwing a true statement at all. Thats why Im asking if people are getting the same feeling as I am because I actually dont know.

[Andrewbassg]

Just now, But_Can_You_Meme said:

Care you back up your claim with evidence or are you one of THOSE kinds of people?

Actually the MM already isn't neutral, By Weegee's own statements, so.....

[Bad_Players_Are_Toxic]

Just now, Andrewbassg said:

Actually the MM already isn't neutral, By Weegee's own statements, so.....

As someone who follows the devblogs, reddits etc i have never seen them admit MM is biased to one side. IE- Isn't neutral

 

Feel free to link me those statements...

[BoxOfAngryBees]

@But_Can_You_Meme really dude? was that necessary? Can we just not have a casual discussion without stamping signs on peoples foreheads and shoving them into camps?

Cmon man, keep this civil.

[Bad_Players_Are_Toxic]

Just now, BoxOfAngryBees said:

@But_Can_You_Meme really dude? was that necessary? Can we just not have a casual discussion without stamping signs on peoples foreheads and shoving them into camps?

Cmon man, keep this civil.

Dude ffs. I'm eating and now have bits of food on the floor.

[ColonelPete]

16 minutes ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

... what?

Im not saying its true - if I knew it to be true I would be writing very differently (like the style i wrote in your first bullet point) ... having a feeling doesnt mean Im throwing a true statement at all. Thats why Im asking if people are getting the same feeling as I am because I actually dont know.

You claimed to see a correlation.

Now I am not sure if you are seeing stuff or feeling™ it.

[Andrewbassg]

17 minutes ago, But_Can_You_Meme said:

As someone who follows the devblogs, reddits etc i have never seen them admit MM is biased to one side. IE- Isn't neutral

 

That's not what I said. I said isn't neutral .Which means it can be tampered with. In what way and to what end.....  

17 minutes ago, But_Can_You_Meme said:

Feel free to link me those statements...

Just a sec...

[BoxOfAngryBees]

well colonel, yes - I believe I am seeing a correlation. Thats why Im asking in the forums if other people are seeing it too. I also understand, though, that I could be wrong - which is why I worded my statement the way I did. Thats also why I said I had a feeling that something was amiss - because it was just that, a feeling.

 

Now I also understand that these forums can be .... charged, but I assure you, Im not throwing out something with keywords in the text to trigger a me-too bandwagon response crowd here. Its an honest post asking an honest question and, by the looks of it, Im quite likely wrong - nobody has done the numbers work and brought them to this discussion as of yet. If there were a correlation, someone would have already or maybe still will bring these numbers and figures.

[159Hunter]

1 hour ago, Mahaaret said:

He could say; prove me wrong tbf

Correlation without data =/= correlation. 

 

[Andrewbassg]

1 minute ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

well colonel, yes - I believe I am seeing a correlation. Thats why Im asking in the forums if other people are seeing it too. I also understand, though, that I could be wrong - which is why I worded my statement the way I did. Thats also why I said I had a feeling that something was amiss - because it was just that, a feeling.

 

Now I also understand that these forums can be .... charged, but I assure you, Im not throwing out something with keywords in the text to trigger a me-too bandwagon response crowd here. Its an honest post asking an honest question and, by the looks of it, Im quite likely wrong - nobody has done the numbers work and brought them to this discussion as of yet. If there were a correlation, someone would have already or maybe still will bring these numbers and figures.

These two folks like to act like some kind of neighborhood watch aka  "fun police" if you know the type . I think you know what is the way to deal with them :)

[principat121]

2 hours ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

Its already known that the MM, with full intention, sets teams up for steamroll.

Claim without proof. 

 

Stopped reading there, as the rest will just ba biased and false tinfoil blabla. 

[Andrewbassg]

39 minutes ago, But_Can_You_Meme said:

Feel free to link me those statements...

It seems that I can't find it. I think they changed the wording. It was something along the lines of " you will distributed with players who's performance will match yours" and I think it was about brawls. I even recall that there were some posts/threads about it.

 

Anyway, on a side note you could learn some manners, like not to eat when you talk, and also if you engage in a 'discussion" then abstain from reacting to the post which you quote. You know, basic stuff....

[ColonelPete]

33 minutes ago, BoxOfAngryBees said:

well colonel, yes - I believe I am seeing a correlation. Thats why Im asking in the forums if other people are seeing it too. I also understand, though, that I could be wrong - which is why I worded my statement the way I did. Thats also why I said I had a feeling that something was amiss - because it was just that, a feeling.

 

Now I also understand that these forums can be .... charged, but I assure you, Im not throwing out something with keywords in the text to trigger a me-too bandwagon response crowd here. Its an honest post asking an honest question and, by the looks of it, Im quite likely wrong - nobody has done the numbers work and brought them to this discussion as of yet. If there were a correlation, someone would have already or maybe still will bring these numbers and figures.

Seeing something is not feeling™ it and your statement about the MM makes it obvious of what opinion you are.

14 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

It seems that I can't find it. I think they changed the wording. It was something along the lines of " you will distributed with players who's performance will match yours" and I think it was about brawls. I even recall that there were some posts/threads about it.

That statement was about Brawls, not Random battles.

And being matched with people of your performance does not make the battles unequal.