ESL for Warships?

[Verdius]

 

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

 

Whereas you believe it is a big conspiracy. I personally think that luck is quite a sane explanation as well.

[mmmbeer]

If RNG is at a different level in streaks of battles., and not between shots only, then I'm right. No matter if it is a "conspiracy", "faulty code" or just working as intended. There is no such thing a luck in coding this, it's either random between shots, between battles, groups of battles or a combination of those. It's not just luck.

[mmmbeer]

Have you ever noticed the few last survivors in a soon to be lost battle getting unusually good RNG suddenly?

 

Or did they just suddenly start to aim better?

[Verdius]

Burden of proof...what am I a lawyer?

 

Clearly not. Anyway here is something for you to ponder over:[quote name=

 When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.

 

[mmmbeer]

There are claims going both ways..and more than one.

 

You can spare me the personal comments and answer some of the questions if you are truly interested in this. I know you must have noticed the last survivor effect at least.

 

The ones claiming RNG differs only between shots and nothing else, no proof there either.

[mmmbeer]

So, did you notice the last survivor effect?

[Verdius]

There are claims going both ways..and more than one.

 

You can spare me the personal comments and answer some of the questions if you are truly interested in this. I know you must have noticed the last survivor effect at least.

I am claiming nothing. You are claiming that there is a conspiracy.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. 

 

And I haven't had any trouble specifically killing the last person on the enemy team. Nor do I notice any kind of tendency for them to do especially well because of it.

[adeliselol]

This thread is hilarious

 

mmmbeer I think WG just has it out for you and has coded in specific anti-mmmbeer RNG options

[mmmbeer]

Verdius: You are one of a handful of people writing in this post, if you are not claiming anything then have a nice day.

 

I notice you don't bother the other posters with having to prove their claims. I was waiting for some answers from those who were claiming things.

[mmmbeer]

This thread is hilarious

 

mmmbeer I think WG just has it out for you and has coded in specific anti-mmmbeer RNG options

 

Hehe, funny. But more people have noticed the effect, if you read above. It's just our interpretation of why this happens we seem to not be in agreement of.

 

When I ask directly if people have seen these effects only one so far claim that he has not.

 

We must be playing different games, because I have very clearly a different level of RNG in one streak of battles vs another streak of battles.

[adeliselol]

It has already been explained by 10 people here. Actual RNG already shows deviations in performance for your average 50% winrate player

[daki]

Where are the moderators when you need them?

 

Please spam some other random topic which deals with RNG and do not troll a thread about ESL...

[mmmbeer]

No, those 10 people did not explain this the same.

 

Did you notice any of these effects or do you have the same level of RNG no matter which group of battles you assess,  in 5 battles today and 5 battles tomorrow and any group of battles for eternity? You shouldn't just call a quits to the discussion without answering any of the relevant questions, that's not fair.

 

Wide spread and possibly rigged RNG is the most important reason why the game in it's current state is not good for fair competetive play. Even if it is not rigged the share widespread RNG is too much for ESL. Without being hounded for evidence, was not that what ESL concluded with the last time this was on the table?

[adeliselol]

Yea except for the part where good players have consistantly good results, despite RNG elements in the game. There is no rigged RNG please stop making these stupid posts

[mmmbeer]

Still not answering the very clear question... I think because the answer is, "yes, I have noticed that"..and it does not fit into your view.

 

I'm pretty sure the great players have streaks of battles that are not very good...better than the baddies ofcourse, but not consistently good results as you claim.

[adeliselol]

Yes, thats called RNG

 

the R standing for random there, meaning the results are randomized.

These random elements are mitigated by good players, but ofc still exist

 

Doesnt mean its not competitive

[mmmbeer]

Missing the point altogether...did you even read the thread?

 

The question was; is RNG random only between salvoes or can you have a whole battle or group of battles with bad RNG (or vice versa with good).

 

Calling my claims stupid when you misunderstand so blatantly is not very good...

 

The more random-factors the less competetive. A bit random is OK. +-25% is too much. A few steps more (say +-50%) and you have a ESL of playing BINGO.

 

 

[Tyrendian89]

Missing the point altogether...did you even read the thread?

 

The question was; is RNG random only between salvoes or can you have a whole battle or group of battles with bad RNG (or vice versa with good).

 

Calling my claims stupid when you misunderstand so blatantly is not very good...

 

 

 

of course you can, that's why it's called RANDOM for Poseidon's sake...

[adeliselol]

The answer is yes, its random after all. Meaning that you can indeed have several games in a row where things won't go your way.

Again as already explained by several posters above me

 

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of random, maybe this helps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

[mmmbeer]

 

of course you can, that's why it's called RANDOM for Poseidon's sake...

 

No, if you get RNG stacked against you for say 5 btls of 20+ salvoes each that is not random but rigged. I am sure a math wizz can calculate the exact number of the probability, but it is so high it might occur once in your lifetime at most if it was truly random.

 

There will be streaks in a truly random RNG, but not for battle after battle with only bad RNG or battle after battle with only good RNG. So long streaks indicate a system of handicaps and blessings. It is not mathematically possible for that to be the result of randomness between salvoes, exept for that once in a lifetime. Yet it happens every day.

[Tyrendian89]

I give up... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ have fun with your tinfoil hat

[mmmbeer]

You claim that bad RNG could happen for 5 * 20 salvoes in a streak randomly every now and then...do you know the odds for that?

 

You claim I don't know what random is yet you seems to think random can do anything. It can't.

 

If you play the roulette on RED and lose 10 times in a row...yet possible you are most likely being cheated. -Laws of probability.

[Earl_of_Northesk]

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.

 

"Close to" and "exactly at" are two different things.

The distribution of players winrates is the best evidence we have truly random RNG.

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.

 

The effect you describe is exactly what RNG is you tool.  To truly elevate its effect out, you need thousands of battles. 10 games where you "feel" (and your feeling is probably wrong) you have bad RNG don't mean anything.

[Tubit101]

WoWs is not even close to qualify as an e-sports game. RNG factors such as detonations are 100% incompatible with being regarded as a serious e-sports game. There's also the fact that certain players have access to ships that others can't use. So that's a big NOPE.

[Tungstonid]

The whole "RNG for salvoes or battles" discussion is kinda pointless unless WG does an official statement how the RNG works or publishes the code, which they won't do. However, there are some things you can figure out just by looking at the ship details, watching WG videos about how the game works and by (rational and logical) thinking.

I for myself assume that there is the same RNG for every player in the game for every fired shot, started fire and so on.

 

mmmbeer, you claim (and therefore Verdius is right that you have the burden of proof) that the RNG determines the outcome of a battle for whatever reason by influencing things like dispersion and damage done to a ship.

 

 I also think regular random battles should be random without this effect. I hate the fact that I am put in some battles where I am supposed to lose and then later on get a string of battles where I am supposed to win. Just give me a stable and random environment where my ships guns will behave similarly from battle to battle.

 

I personally doubt that the outcome of a battle is predetermined by WGs RNG since the biggest RNG generators are not programmed and implemented by WG. You have 24 players in a battle. Every player acts at his own will (if he acts at all). How do you think a programm can handle this situation when it can't influence the players and their skills directly (e.g. by steering the ship or aiming the guns)? So if the supposed winning team consists of a bunch of numbnuts hugging borders and afk DDs and they play

a domination match... what do you think will happen despite the RNG decided they will win? I honestly doubt the RNG will have the power to let them win anyway. And battles are not always won by shooting alone.

So that leaves the option that RNG influences every shot itself. Or better to say the dispersion since this is the only real thing that matters in most cases. So the RNG "draws" a circle around your aiming marker with the range dependant dispersion and determines a point of impact/trajectory for every single shot you fire. But again, the biggest influence still do have the players involved. Did the shooter aim right, does the victim try to avoid the shot or even turns into it?... Such things. Then, hits/misses are determined by whether the ship is in the right place or not and then penetration and damage is determined by where the shells hit exactely, how thick the armour is etc. This is a much easier code than trying the implement something which predicts something that is unpredictable.

In my opinion, from a developer's and game publisher's point of view it just doesn't make sense to implement more than a simple RNG.

 

I will pack some of your questions in the spoiler to save space:

 

 Do you never have battles where all your salvoes do only [edited]damage or miss. And then other battles quite the opposite?

 

I can't remember a battle where ALL my shots did low damage (overpens)/bounces/misses. Yes, there might have most certainly been battle where I did below average damage but most of them were indeed either bad luck (or bad shooting RNG) or miscalculations on my side. And even in my top battles I had salvoes that didn't do appropriate damage. But that is how RNG works. You can never fully and to 100% predict the outcome.

 

Block Quote

 Do you really have this [the same RNG from battle to battle]? And do you blame your aiming in the battles where almost all your shots do overpen dmg and miss? And then pat yourself on the back for good aiming when almost all shots do great damage?

 

Yes, yes and no, yes and no. It depends on the situations. In some games I did a good job by making the right tactical decision and giving good leads on the targets. In others I just had luck e.g. by detonating an enemy DD at first contact in a domination game. Same goes for bad battles. Sometimes it is my fault that I either sailed right into the enemy lemming train or chose the flank where no one was at all. Sometimes it is RNG showing me the middle finger by making a 12 shot salvo against a broadside cruiser resulting in 4 misses, 6 bounces and 2 overpens. Well, sh*t happens.

 

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

 

See my text right at the beginning. WG will never fully publish how RNG works. But by watching videos of them and other youtubers and by having a look at the harbour you get a pretty good picture how RNG and MM works. Things like dispersion and fire chance are there for a reason. I can even remember videos about shooting mechanics from a while back but since it is late I won't bother searching for them. Just do some research on youtube for example.

 

Have you ever noticed the few last survivors in a soon to be lost battle getting unusually good RNG suddenly?

 

Yes, I have. BUT: I have also seen the opposite. That last survivors just got shredded and couldn't do anything against the enemies even in situations where they had an advantage. Again, this is RNG and you can never fully predict the outcome.

 

You claim that bad RNG could happen for 5 * 20 salvoes in a streak randomly every now and then...do you know the odds for that?

 

Since the game is played by thousands of players, yes it is possible even though the odds should be small. Although, if you have 5 battles and 20 salvoes each where you get close to no damage... well, the problem might sit between the chair and the monitor if you know what I mean. Yes, sometimes I, too, have 2 or 3 or sometimes even 4 salvoes that do no damage just because either the opponent is good or I have bad luck. But if you claim that you regularly have numerous battles with such salvoes alternating with the opposite case ( having about 5 battles where every salvoes hits and does high amounts of damage), you shouls provide evidence in form of a replay based statistic or something similar if you want other people to believe you.

 

 

 When you have 5-10 losses in a row where your team loses almost 12-0 in every one you just know it is time for a break until the game resets. Then the next day you can play exactly the same and get 8 wins in a row where youre on the favoured team. This is how WG tries to convince you that you rule the waves and are a great player again. While it is all in the RNG and matchmaker.

 

Lastly, in one of your comments you claimed, that the rigged RNG "resets" after a break so you can change your former lose streak into a win streak which happens to convince you of playing again/more. In my opinion this has more of a psychological reason than anything else. If you have a bad day you start to get frustrated more and more as your game session goes on. You make more and more mistakes which lead to worse games for you and therefore more frustration. In this case, a break from WoWS is more likely to "reset" your own emotional state than the "rigged RNG" so you can battle on more concentrated and mentally fitter than before.