GOODBYE WG

[Mr_Damager]

14 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

For some reason only few players see these "obvious" things.

You did the count yourself, didn't you?

14 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You are just claiming something without proof

I don't see any proof given by you.

 

To see these obvious things you need to pull your head out of that fanboy (or WG staff) arse of yours.

[ColonelPete]

4 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

I don't see any proof given by you.

I do not claim manipulation and I do not see many in this thread talking about "obvious" rigging.

Looks like you cannot bring proof and you are just talking about stuff you imagine for some reason.

[Saltface]

29 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

the matchmaking is rigged as well as the RNG. It's obvious.

 

8 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

Discussing anything with super biased fanboys

 

Good day,

 

As I am not a fan boy you might be interested to discuss this matter with me. 

 

You claim that the MM is rigged and same applies for RNG. This is a bold claim. I suspect you have the necessary evidence or at least valid arguments that support your claim. Don't forget that the onus (burden) of proof lies on your side. 

You are entitled to speak your opinion. But an opinion which is not supported by evidence can be rejected at once. An opinion without warrant (justification) is just an opinion and nothing more. It is like an a$$hole. Everybody has one. Justification is the property of belief that qualifies it as knowledge rather than mere opinion. Also, I am sure you know that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. This was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. And your claim is extraordinary.

 

Be informed that your player quality has nothing to do with evidence, facts and data. I don't understand why you had the urge to tell us you are a bad player (post #92). Evidence is not related to you or to anyone else. Your player quality is irrelevant in the same way you and I are irrelevant in this discussion. Data, hard facts and evidence are relevant in any argument. Might I also note that your feelings are the worst kind of evidence that you could provide to this discussion. What you feel has the same value with what my cats feel, in what this discussion is concerned.

 

So, I will be waiting for you to present your data, facts and observable evidence that support your claim. If you can't provide such evidence then you just have an opinion and you can go your merry way. But pretending you are the only unbiased observer of the game and that your opinion should be held as a high standing dogma by all doesn't fly. Backup your claims or just wear your tinfoil hat and on you go.

 

i m waiting

 

Regards

Salt

[Siagor]

47 minutes ago, Saltface said:

Data, hard facts and evidence are relevant in any argument. Might I also note that your feelings are the worst kind of evidence that you could provide to this discussion.

Not in this day 'n age 

[Maris_Piper]

Well I blame Wargambling fro soo many Dumb A** Ideas, Cash Grabs and General Incompetence in Game Management but Alas I can't blame them for Myself and Others being Crap Players 

[Seraphice]

2 hours ago, Mr_Damager said:

Listen, dude. No matter how I (or any player) play, the matchmaking is rigged as well as the RNG. It's obvious. I could just sit and watch how those one-sided matches occur. I don't even need to play. I see how my performance depends on the RNG (Rigged Number Generator).

I do not need your advice. Don't tell me what to do.

 

Firstly, the MM shouldn't be rigged as hell. Secondly, it should be skill-based (SBMM).

Ok... so how exactly is the matchmaking rigged? what are we doing that is unfair in the matchmaker? Can you give proof of this?

 

2 hours ago, Mr_Damager said:

It is obvious. Discussing anything with super biased fanboys like you (or Garkong_the_Impaled) wouldn't be a good idea.

If it is so obvious, why isn't everyone screaming it from the rooftops then?

 

also sad to see you go @Krotonx1. Hopefully we will see you return one day

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[Seraphice]

On 3/15/2023 at 5:44 PM, GordonsGekko said:

By the way, attached you can find a matchup I found just a couple of hours ago. You want to tell me this is a pure coincidence?

The game does mirror matchmaking by nation. That is even explained in our videos:

 

On 3/15/2023 at 5:44 PM, GordonsGekko said:

Just because Sera your master tells you that WG is sincere and benevolent that doesn't mean they are telling the truth. 

hmm... I have some volunteers that I manage for KotS but I don't think karkong is part of that group 

 

On 3/15/2023 at 5:35 PM, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Basically the WG patent someone dug up proves that there is some fudging going on

There is "protected matchmaking" for new players until you reach a certain amount of battles or play your first game on T5. Also doesnt work if you are playing in a division. All other matchmaking rules are explained in the video

 

On 3/15/2023 at 5:02 PM, GordonsGekko said:

So you're saying the matchmaker is completely random and not biased at all? What makes you think it is?

No, it isnt " completely "  random.
It takes into account your ship tier, type and nation.
But it doesnt take into account you, your winrate, your consumables or whatever other attribute you can think of.
Though it does take into account how many games you are bottom tier on that tier, since you can only be bottom tier 37.5% of your matches at a specific tier.

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[arttuperkunas]

On 3/15/2023 at 6:35 PM, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

"obviously" as in "it its known"?

Basically the WG patent someone dug up proves that there is some fudging going on, giving players new to a tier a bit better matchmaking. The amount of fudging doesn't explain the difference between a 40% player and a 60% player.

If you're in for a sad and painful laugh, go ahead and watch that other dudes replays - he's complaining about "personalized RNG" and "manipulated matchmaking", too:

This isn't how patents work, and it doesn't really explain anything afaik.

 

A company with a valid patent has the right to prohibit others from doing something. It doesn't mean that they actually practice, or even can practice the invention described in the patent claims.

 

I remember looking at that patent a year or two ago, going "hmm", and then moving on.

[SurfaceFish]

5 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

since you can only be bottom tier 37.5% of your matches at a specific tier.

A question please? Is there a way to be bottom tier more often? I like to be bottom tier playing T8 CV, can earn more credits and farm more damage. 

 

Should I play few T8 CV games then move to a different tier to "reset" the counter?

 

It's the counter specific for individual ship or that tier?

 

Thanks. 

[ColonelPete]

16 minutes ago, SurfaceFish said:

A question please? Is there a way to be bottom tier more often? I like to be bottom tier playing T8 CV, can earn more credits and farm more damage. 

 

Should I play few T8 CV games then move to a different tier to "reset" the counter?

 

It's the counter specific for individual ship or that tier?

 

Thanks. 

Div up with a Tier IX ship. That way you cannot meet Tier VI anymore and are uptiered more often.

[Mr_Damager]

1 hour ago, Seraphice said:

Ok... so how exactly is the matchmaking rigged? what are we doing that is unfair in the matchmaker? Can you give proof of this?

There are too many one-sided matches. Bad players (or just players and AI bots along with them) are put in one team on purpose. That's why the team loses quickly without any chance. I don't have any other explanation. And I'm not talking about the averages or the statistics/achievements. I'm talking about how one particular one-sided match occurs.

Even if it weren't rigged, it would still be unfair. Random can't be fair.

On 3/15/2023 at 3:58 PM, Krotonx1 said:

You have a matchmaking which, due to the way it is structured, does not guarantee fairness between the teams facing each other, not to mention the quality of the players on the pitch.

Neither rigged MM nor random MM is fair.

1 hour ago, Seraphice said:

If it is so obvious, why isn't everyone screaming it from the rooftops then?

I see very few players visit the forum.

 

I continue to play this game (mostly in PVE) just because I put some money/time/effort in it in the past (that was my fault, my mistake). If I could take it all back, I wouldn't play or be here hoping that something will change in the future.

[hellhound666]

1 hour ago, Seraphice said:

Ok... so how exactly is the matchmaking rigged? what are we doing that is unfair in the matchmaker? Can you give proof of this?

im fairly certain that rigging details would be above your (and everybody else in wows eu) pay grade.

i think that wows is manipulating rng

if i would have proof i wouldn't waste it in here

[ColonelPete]

10 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

There are too many one-sided matches. Bad players (or just players and AI bots along with them) are put in one team on purpose. That's why the team loses quickly without any chance. I don't have any other explanation. And I'm not talking about the averages. I'm talking about one particular one-sided match.

Even if it weren't rigged, it would still be unfair. Random can't be fair.

So you are just making it up, since you are not creative/knowledgable enough to find another explanation...

There is no game out there that prevents one side-games completly.

Even clan battles has one side matches, even against teams with whom one had close matches before.

One player making a mistake, one player doing something unexpected is enough. The difference of one player can lead to an exponential disadvantage over time.

 

This is known for over a hundred years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws

[arttuperkunas]

4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So you are just making it up, since you are not creative/knowledgable enough to find another explanation...

There is no game out there that prevents one side-games completly.

Even clan battles has one side matches, even against teams with whom one had close matches before.

One player making a mistake, one player doing something unexpected is enough. The difference of one player can lead to an exponential disadvantage over time.

 

This is known for over a hundred years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws

I would also say that the experience is skewed by many of these ppl complaining about rigged MM being themselves orange-to-deep-red players. Good matches are matches where they get carried, bad matches are ones where the better players in their team are unable to make up for their mediocrity.

 

I understand why it's appealing for bad/inexperienced players to call for a system where they always get better players as teammates. OTOH why would better players want a system where their relative game knowledge/skill is penalised by having their team stuffed with tomatoes?

[Mr_Damager]

14 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

There is no game out there that prevents one side-games completly.

Even clan battles has one side matches, even against teams with whom one had close matches before.

The thing is that it happens too often in this game.

Then it happens due to bad design and a lack of balance, face it, fanboy.

7 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

I would also say that the experience is skewed by many of these ppl complaining about rigged MM being themselves orange-to-deep-red players. Good matches are matches where they get carried, bad matches are ones where the better players in their team are unable to make up for their mediocrity.

 

I understand why it's appealing for bad/inexperienced players to call for a system where they always get better players as teammates. OTOH why would better players want a system where their relative game knowledge/skill is penalised by having their team stuffed with tomatoes?

Good job, fanboy.

[ColonelPete]

5 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

The thing is that it happens too often in this game.

Then it happens due to bad design and a lack of balance, face it, fanboy.

You are just guessing. 

And I never claimed the game is well designed.

[SurfaceFish]

56 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Div up with a Tier IX ship. That way you cannot meet Tier VI anymore and are uptiered more often.

Thanks for the idea, but I only play CV solo. Although it will be interesting to see the extra credits from farming superships with T8 ships. 

 

Also I'm playing T8 CV to earn credits with blue booster. So not playing to win games but to farm damage as the credit earning is the same win or lose. More credits from doing damage and kills than spending time spotting to win games. Don't want my selfish play to affect div mate. 

[arttuperkunas]

14 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

The thing is that it happens too often in this game.

Then it happens due to bad design and a lack of balance, face it, fanboy.

Good job, fanboy.

Which part of what I wrote was inaccurate? If you are a below average player calling for "balanced MM", that means by default that you want your team to be padded by better players, doesn't it?

 

Alternatively, you might consider gitting gud.

[ItsEyeJasper]

Here are 2 Screenshots from my week. 1 is Overall, the other is just solo. Please can you explain what information you can get to tell me how the MM is rigged, And Why it would be so greatly  rigged in My favor not including last Sunday, I guess mm got out of the wrong side of the bed. I mean  It cant be because i am a charming good looking individual. Because honestly, i am a donkey sometimes, still good looking but still an donkey.  

 

One needs to note that this is also a bunch of games where my ping has been 110 to 500 due to having to hotspot for the last week thanks to a Cyclone. I may not even complete my battle pass, because of so many isp issues since the 26th prior to the cyclone.

 

Overall - 

 

Solo -

[Mr_Damager]

16 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

Which part of what I wrote was inaccurate? If you are a below average player calling for "balanced MM", that means by default that you want your team to be padded by better players, doesn't it?

Try to google "SBMM", fanboy.

[Siagor]

4 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

Try to google "SBMM", fanboy.

 

Can you please give an example of what MM is supposed to look for, so it can match players of equal skill? 

What will constitute that S in SBMM?

[Psychological_Warfare]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:58 AM, Krotonx1 said:

Dears, with this ticket I announce that the way the game is structured, myself and I hope that many others will join over time, will no longer waste time and money for this game. You have a matchmaking which, due to the way it is structured, does not guarantee fairness between the teams facing each other, not to mention the quality of the players on the pitch. You are no longer inventive, too bad I really liked this game and you managed to ruin it over time. Luckily there are others much more serious than yours to whom I will devote my time and money. Kind Regards Krotonx1

Funny thing is that you are below the average of the "quality of the players on the pitch" you mentioned. Your presence makes your team more likely to lose and yet you use the argument that INCLUDES you against the game?

Maybe thats why you set your profile to "private" to try dodge the rightful criticism you deserve for such a ridiculous statement, but unluckily for you there are still ways to at least see your overall performance due to your clan history.

[ItsEyeJasper]

3 minutes ago, Mr_Damager said:

Try to google "SBMM", fanboy.

SBMM does not work in the long run as i explained higher up in this link. it is a short brief explanation, with out delving into the depths of the issue. if i spent an entire week on the issue i could keep on going , but i don't have the time for that and i am sure there is already a study carried out on it which highlights the issues.

 

It is great for tournaments and short term events , But for long periods and bulk  matches it does not work and stagnates the game while it chases better players away. Good players like winning, the minute you guarantee that good player only win 50% of their games. you ruin it. 

 

Because skill gap was so vital, i do feel  that had we maintained RTS CV in the game, these should have been paired around Skill of the players, However you would have likely seen the same 2 players always playing vs each other which is not fun for either of them. and ultimately would have killed the  game play for the higher skilled players of that class. 

[Malim0o]

Il y a 34 minutes, Mr_Damager a dit :

Try to google "SBMM", fanboy.

Most of the games that have a ranked mode dont use any SBMM in their random battle ...

 

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

2 hours ago, Mr_Damager said:

[...] nor random MM is fair.

Ok, this seems to be a real issue here.
Please take a long and hard look at that graph.

 

What do you think the curve looks like after 10 000 dice rolls?

What do you think the curve looks like after 10 000 dice rolls with not only one but a lot of dice?

 

Yes, there is a possibility that you always get the trash team. But it's extremely unlikely.

One can argue that this is not optimal and one should take player skill into consideration, but thats something where I happily agree to disagree.

Personally, I'd use skill based MM to balance divs, because tryhard divs are skewing the MM just like tuberous plant divs - but this is not what WG does.