ESL for Warships?

[mmmbeer]

There is a point. I agree it's more difficult coding.

 

A bad player would grow tired of never killing ships and having fun. So he needs a major boost in some battles to do good and therefor to keep grinding. That is the motivation from WG I think.

 

If the RNG was only biased from shot to shot then it would even out in the course of one battle and the good player would always beat the bad player.

[Admiral_noodle]

There is a point. I agree it's more difficult coding.

 

A bad player would grow tired of never killing ships and having fun. So he needs a major boost in some battles to do good and therefor to keep grinding. That is the motivation from WG I think.

 

It doesn't exist. But it's pointless discussing if you've decided it does. I can't prove it isn't there because random will deliver the same results. I.e. There is no hypothesis we can test to differentiate between the two theories. However my argument is such a mechanic is itself not required since random will deliver the same results... over time. 

 

And your last point is completely wrong. Random does not even out over the course of a battle. It doesn't have to even out at all. Ever. However it becomes less and less likely you will be consistently lucky or lucky over time. That is all. And it's a fundamental misunderstanding of randomness you have there. 

[mmmbeer]

I wonder how you can be so certain of this?

 

Random from shot to shot will even out to fast to get the desired effect. A handicap over say 5 battles will give the desired effect.

 

After 20 rolls it is not completely even, but it is almost even in 99 out of 100 times.

[Vulgarny]

WoWs ESL

Last year some ESL admins aproach WoWs as potential ESL game. Couple of battles they watched later they were never heard again

[mmmbeer]

I can't beleive I am the only one having battles where I do only crappy damage every salvo and then battles where I do great. With the same level of aiming skills.

 

I think you all do, but convince yourself that is just bad luck.

[Admiral_noodle]

I suppose it depends on the definition and how esports work.

Mmmbeer - I'm not "certain" but based on reasonable evidence, my own experiences and what the devs have said, I am satisfied RNG is as random as it can ever get. No point in discussing further without some serious discussion on randomness. Which I don't want to get into now

 

We all have days/battles/5 minutes/3 hours of bad and good RNG. I don't convince myself it's bad/good luck. I am satisfied that it's consistent with "luck" until someone shows good evidence to the contrary. 

[mmmbeer]

Before you quit, will you answer the question about doing all bad shots in one battle and then good shots in another battle? It all hinges on this.

 

Admiral_noodle:

In your last paragraph you are basically admitting it is not random from shot to shot, but battle dependant. So you are saying the same as I, because luck in a game like this is coded and is called RNG.

[Admiral_noodle]

Before you quit, will you answer the question about doing all bad shots in one battle and then good shots in another battle? It all hinges on this.

 

In your last paragraph you are basically admitting it is not random from shot to shot, but battle dependant. So you are saying the same as I, because luck in a game like this is coded and is called RNG.

 

No im not. Your perception of a bad battle is affected by the relative number of bad vs good salvoes. Which is by definition random. 

 

Yes. I have had battles where I perceived all my shots were bad and others where I couldn't miss. However on playback I noticed my perception didn't match reality. In the good games I still had bad shots and in the bad games I had good salvoes... usually when I missed

 

Its interesting you use my descriptions which are all about *perception* to add to your theory though

[Verdius]

 and find that all battles are not equal in terms of what RNG i get.

 

Thats why it is random

 

But none of you have answered my question yet, how do you explain the difference in the battles where your shots hit good and the battles where they mostly hit bad? You have unstable skill-application?

 

Unstable RNG

 

[mmmbeer]

I am talking about the reality, not faulty perception.

 

I am having battles where all my shots do crappy damage and then completely different battles where they do mostly good. Although it is not a 0% vs 100% the difference is so high that it is like playing two different games. That is what rigged RNG is.

[aboomination]

Or are your shots stable in every battle?

 

That's not what RNG means.

[mmmbeer]

We are discussing if the randomness is only between shots or if there are differences from battle to battle also. You can not have 5 battles with bad RNG and then 5 battles with god RNG if the randomness is only from shot to shot. That would be a 1-10000000000000000 chance if you fire say 20+ salvoes each battle

[mmmbeer]

Stable every battle = same RNG behavior between shots in one battle and the next. Still random between shots, but not at a completely different level in one battle from another battle. Is what I mean by "stable every battle".

 

Imagine playing an ESL-final and you have one of the battles where RNG is crappy the whole battle and one of the enemies have the opposite. Cant have this in E-sports. And I think we shouldn't have it while grinding randoms either. If I and a buddy meet 1 on 1 in a random game I want it to be our skill that determines who sinks the other, not who have a blessed RNG battle or not.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

I am talking about the reality, not faulty perception.

 

I am having battles where all my shots do crappy damage and then completely different battles where they do mostly good. Although it is not a 0% vs 100% the difference is so high that it is like playing two different games. That is what rigged RNG is.

 

You do not have any idea what statistical analysis is right? Or how RNG works in this game? And what a self-fullfilling prophecy is?

No, you don't.

 

No, I have never experienced something like this. 

A mechanic like this wouldn't even make sense, what would it be good for?

I hear a lot that it shall ensure everyone stay around 50% winrate and gets a good game once in a while, but the funny thing is that a truly random RNG will do just that, but better.

So please, stop that crap.

[aboomination]

I don't see the things you seem to notice.

[mmmbeer]

So you have stable behaviour of RNG from battle to battle? Yes, randomness between shots, but same level in this battle and the next battle and so on?

 

I don't and Admiral_noodle above stated he doesn't either.

[mmmbeer]

We all have days/battles/5 minutes/3 hours of bad and good RNG. I don't convince myself it's bad/good luck. I am satisfied that it's consistent with "luck" until someone shows good evidence to the contrary. 

Right here.

 

This is what I am talking about, variations from battle to battle. Not just between shots as stated by many.

[aboomination]

I very, very rarely have bad games because of rng. Yes, there are shitty salvos but then there are those lucky ones. In between I'll always score some solid hits.

If I have a bad game, most of the time I am to blame.

[mmmbeer]

I wish I could say the same. I have different behaviour of RNG completely from a good game to a bad game. Then I am not talking about the ones where I differ in performance, cause that happens too of course.

[mmmbeer]

I hear a lot that it shall ensure everyone stay around 50% winrate and gets a good game once in a while, but the funny thing is that a truly random RNG will do just that, but better.

So please, stop that crap.

You would have 50% WR with truly random MM and RNG...? I think not, the skilled have higher WR than the baddies on a level playing field.

 

I am not claiming that this affects long term WR, now you are mixing in conspiracy theories. I also get the predetermined good RNG so I should think it does not affect long term WR. But in those 5 battles were I am either handicaped or favoured I dont like it, because it feels fake and I could lose a 1 vs 1 duel with a player playing worse than me or win vs on playing better than me if I am on the blessed streak. This is not right.

 

I am sure a very bad player would like it because it elevates him to good for a few battles while when handicapped he does not feel to much difference from his average play.

[Verdius]

I wish I could say the same. I have different behaviour of RNG completely from a good game to a bad game. Then I am not talking about the ones where I differ in performance, cause that happens too of course.

 

Do you perhaps have any replay(s) that shows something that is supposedly statistically highly unlikely to present as evidence? 

Because right now it is just all anecdotal which makes this entire discussion completely pointless since you are convinced of your point and you don't have anything to back up your suspicion. Your argumentation is build upon your personal interpretation of your personal observations and you dismiss our replies because of your own conviction.

 

Therefore until you can provide some actual evidence of a WG conspiracy to give noobs a better winrate and hold good players back I will have to bring out this:

[mmmbeer]

I think you can go into your own replay folder and find quite a few battles where a lot more than statistically significant number of shots hit badly compared to how you aim and then find other battles where the exact opposite happens. For the whole battle, not just randomness in-between salvoes.

 

BTW, where did WG claim that the RNG only applies in between shots in battles? I'd like to see that claim.

[mmmbeer]

 

 a WG conspiracy to give noobs a better winrate and hold good players back I will have to bring out this:

 

Now you are missing the ball completely. Long term winrate wouldn't be affected if you have both streaks of handicap and streak of blessing. Only the impression of the game would.

 

An example why such could appeal to the baddies; It would be like if you could get 5 battles where you had in game blessings in counterstrike, enough that you could beat the pro's, then for the next 5 you would just die instantly. That sure beats always getting killed fast by those pro's and you would continue playing if you thought it was your own skill causing it. It's nice, but it's fake and rigged.

[Verdius]

I think you can go into your own replay folder and find quite a few battles where a lot more than statistically significant number of shots hit badly compared to how you aim and then find other battles where the exact opposite happens. For the whole battle, not just randomness in-between salvoes.

 

BTW, where did WG claim that the RNG only applies in between shots in battles? I'd like to see that claim.

 

Don't shift the burden of proof. I am not going to spend hours looking for something to confirm your conspiracy. (Not to mention the whole confirmation bias problem this invokes) I am not experiencing anything of the sort. You keep repeating the same line yet you still can't provide anything tangible. Just get rid of the tinfoil if you aren't going to even put in the effort to see if your own suspicions are false or not.

[mmmbeer]

Burden of proof...what am I a lawyer? If you don't notice the effect then good for you. If only I do, then I'm probably wrong. If you claim something then you should be able to prove it also, just as I should If I werent too lazy to write a research paper on this. I havent even seen a link to where WG supposedly claims this or that about RNG. That should be easy to get for those posting it.

 

It's just that many and one above here have noticed the effect, it's just that they beleive it to be caused by....luck