Jump to content


Post in here when yer ragin'

numpties RNG muppets MM ARRRGH

  • Please log in to reply
678 replies to this topic

Sir_Direkin #661 Posted 15 January 2019 - 10:53 PM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 11382 battles
  • 1,269
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016

Remember this statistical improbability from a a couple days ago, being the last time I played?

 

Well, here's today's statistical improbability.

 

Last time I had 9 losses in a row, 8 of which were in the Wolverine. Started the session off with another 2 losses in a row in that tank, so starting from 60 games and a 65% win rate, I've had 10 losses row before a win puts a stop to that loss streak... but it continues. And Christ! These teams were so consistently [edited] shit. I'm having a really hard time trying to convince myself that these games aren't rigged. There's just no [edited] way that "randoms" can be so consistently one sided for so long. Not just the [edited] atrocious teams, but the [edited] atrocious maps.

 

First game of the day: Airfield. 12-15.

This game had more TDs in it than what the player list shows.

 


El Halluf. All 3 LTs decided to go and brawl heavies. No prizes for guessing we lost.


Himmelsdorf: 15-13.

Loss streak combo breaker. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a [edited] map to have an unarmoured TD on, or that the team was shit.

 


Sand River, 7-15

Speechless.

 


Lakeville. 8-15.

The team that went up valley didn't do a whole lot, other than the StuG III G. Good on you. Shame about the rest. No one on lake road. The enemy had someone there though.

 


Cliff. 15-9.  Well below average game. Nothing special about it.

 


Mines. 15-7. Had a couple enemies keep driving into my gun at close range, but other than that, nothing special. 2nd highest for exp, but still a below average game.

 


Fjords. 3-15.

Yeah... yeah... Team just dropping like flies, like there was no attempt at all to win that game.

 


Paris. 4-15.

Always a fantastic map for TDs, most especially when one of your heavies decides to take the north field and evapourate.

 


Glacier. 13-15.

That was a failure to carry. Mid had collapsed due to people yoloing. North collapsed. South pushed ahead too far and got spanked by arty. Down to me vs 3 arty and a HT. And... so this game is really trying to suggest a VK 30.01H can spot me at the edge of my vision (and I'm in a good TD with good view range and a good crew). Oooookaaay. Yup. A VK 30.01H with light tank levels of view range. Pull the other one. And the real beauty in this one was the M44 spotting me from mid ridge, backing down, and [edited] snap shotting at that angle, to hit me where I was. Riiiiiight. Sure... Always getting [edited] by RNG.

 


Next up: Highway. 14-10. This was "winning on a high note". As high as it gets anyway. Actually this could count as 15-10 as there was a team kill by the enemy. North completely collapsed. I guess there must've been some decent players on the team as I wasn't get arty focused, for a change, while trying to defend cap. Either that, or the enemy arties haven't discovered xvm yet.

 

 

So yeah. 41% WR in the last two sessions. 6 wins in 21 games in the Wolverine, from a 65% WR. Certainly isn't there now; it's 55%. Man, this game is just so much [edited] fun with this [edited] rigged nonsense.

 

Oh, and that arty game was on Minsk. Just to give some idea how abominable the Fail Vehicle 207 can get:

4 hits on the M12, and only 252 damage. This arty has such problems killing other arty, even when you know their location. How [edited] bad is that?


Edited by Sir_Direkin, 15 January 2019 - 10:55 PM.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard


Puggsley #662 Posted 16 January 2019 - 07:56 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 64131 battles
  • 1,406
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

You do understand that ultra small sample size events can easily get a 40% WR? Or less?

 

Man, you put such a huge amount of energy into maintaining the conspiracy rage. Its totally impressive. 

 

Especially when you should completely expect a wide range of outcomes in very small data sets like 12 or 15 games.

 

If you put that amount of effort into critically looking at your games and improving you could be a unicum.



Ezz #663 Posted 16 January 2019 - 08:07 AM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 65657 battles
  • 35,493
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012
It seems to me the wolverine's stats just normalized. Not all that surprising. 

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


FramFramson #664 Posted 16 January 2019 - 09:49 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 42041 battles
  • 3,418
  • [AVAST] AVAST
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

View PostPuggsley, on 15 January 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

You do understand that ultra small sample size events can easily get a 40% WR? Or less?

 

Man, you put such a huge amount of energy into maintaining the conspiracy rage. Its totally impressive. 

 

Especially when you should completely expect a wide range of outcomes in very small data sets like 12 or 15 games.

 

If you put that amount of effort into critically looking at your games and improving you could be a unicum.

 

I'm not sure he thinks it's a conspiracy. I don't recall Direkin making any way out statements (though maybe he did and I forgot?). I think maybe he's just easily tilted or easily pissed about the team-RNG of this game?

LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


CardinalMite #665 Posted 16 January 2019 - 11:17 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 27274 battles
  • 914
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

View PostUser_000125661, on 10 January 2019 - 12:50 AM, said:

 

My aim is to leave my account as I found it - no more, no less.

Ok that makes sense ... every new account starts with a 0% win rate and you are doing your best to leave your account at the same win rate.

 

GGWP.


“Holiday ops is balanced for Asia because a good player opening 11 boxes will get just as many decorations as a noob opening 75..”—.Murazor new head of global festive events.

Puggsley #666 Posted 16 January 2019 - 01:56 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 64131 battles
  • 1,406
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

View PostFramFramson, on 16 January 2019 - 01:49 AM, said:

 

I'm not sure he thinks it's a conspiracy. I don't recall Direkin making any way out statements (though maybe he did and I forgot?). I think maybe he's just easily tilted or easily pissed about the team-RNG of this game?

 

May have worded that a bit harshly. The concern about MM screwing him over. For me the RNG is a wash in the long term so nothing to worry about.

Sir_Direkin #667 Posted 16 January 2019 - 09:14 PM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 11382 battles
  • 1,269
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016

View PostPuggsley, on 16 January 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

Especially when you should completely expect a wide range of outcomes in very small data sets like 12 or 15 games.

 

Did you even look at the score cards posted? They're not a wide range of outcomes; they're mostly identical: me at the top for damage/exp (or close) and still lose. That's what makes it a statistical outlier.

 

Here's a couple more for today. Notice anything?

 

 

Those are losing games, these are winning games.

 

Quite a bit of consistency, isn't there? And the only real difference between winning and losing is if the enemy team has more kamikaze drivers than my team, which is completely out of my control. For some reason I just seemed to be getting a lot of them, especially in those two previous sessions.

 

View PostEzz, on 16 January 2019 - 08:07 AM, said:

normalized 

 

"Regression towards the mean" is the term you're looking for, and even then that would be wrong. Normalisation is something entirely different.

 

View PostFramFramson, on 16 January 2019 - 09:49 AM, said:

I'm not sure he thinks it's a conspiracy. I don't recall Direkin making any way out statements (though maybe he did and I forgot?). I think maybe he's just easily tilted or easily pissed about the team-RNG of this game?

 

I get tilted when streaks like that occur. RNG is always a recurring issue. Like today, bounced several shots off the side of a T1 Heavy and KV-1 in the Wolverine, but could easily pen the front of a Churchill VII several times. I'd consider that to be arse backwards, but that's RNG for you.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard


FramFramson #668 Posted 17 January 2019 - 03:03 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 42041 battles
  • 3,418
  • [AVAST] AVAST
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015
I think my all-time most rage inducing RNG moment was when I was in my STB, directly perpendicular to a Maus' arse, with the hulls literally scraping each other in direct contact and most of my cannon INSIDE the Maus, STRAIGHT on at a 90 degree angle to his hull, and I fired HEAT into the rear hull of the Maus and it didn't pen. TWICE.

LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


Ezz #669 Posted 17 January 2019 - 04:20 AM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 65657 battles
  • 35,493
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostSir_Direkin, on 16 January 2019 - 11:14 PM, said:

 

Regression towards the mean" is the term you're looking for, and even then that would be wrong. Normalisation is something entirely different.

I prefer normalisation as additional data tends to remove abnormality in a data set. In this case your wr appeared abnormally high hence on playing more it would trend closer to a more normal / predicted result. Regression to the mean tends to be used frequently in luck based situations so I tend to avoid it if possible when addressing wot.


Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


FramFramson #670 Posted 17 January 2019 - 05:56 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 42041 battles
  • 3,418
  • [AVAST] AVAST
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

View PostEzz, on 16 January 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

I prefer normalisation as additional data tends to remove abnormality in a data set. In this case your wr appeared abnormally high hence on playing more it would trend closer to a more normal / predicted result. Regression to the mean tends to be used frequently in luck based situations so I tend to avoid it if possible when addressing wot.

 

This is true, but it's also fair to assign a large value to luck in WoT. After all, it's generally agreed on that a player only impacts 20%-25% of the games they play.

LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


Sir_Direkin #671 Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:14 AM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 11382 battles
  • 1,269
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016

View PostEzz, on 17 January 2019 - 04:20 AM, said:

I prefer normalisation as additional data tends to remove abnormality in a data set. In this case your wr appeared abnormally high hence on playing more it would trend closer to a more normal / predicted result.

 

Abnormally high based on what? My overall win rate? So I should be expected to be playing every tank of every class with equal skill over a long period of time, while ignoring a constant improvement in gameplay and individual tank characteristics which may resonate better? That's quite an oversimplification. I mean, are my T1 Heavy, KV-85, and M6 Heavy win rates abnormally high, or are they down to the fact that they were more recent tanks, and I was playing them better? Is my Löwe abnormally low, or is it the case that it's one of my earlier tanks when I didn't really know how to play well, and unsurprisingly played it quite poorly?

 

View PostEzz, on 17 January 2019 - 04:20 AM, said:

Regression to the mean tends to be used frequently in luck based situations so I tend to avoid it if possible when addressing wot.

 

These teams weren't a crap shoot? Team composition in random battles is... random (after taking into account tier templates, vehicle class, power weightings, etc), so we're lead to believe (though some are convinced it's SBMM), which by definition is luck based. Winning is a team effort, and if hypothetically 14 players on one team aren't pulling their weight, and the other team has a unicum stat-padding plat, take a wild guess which one is more likely to win. There's no amount of player skill that's going to prevent you from getting 10+ players on your team with overall win rates <43% (a realistic scenario since that has happened), or players that AFK the whole game; if there was that would be SBMM.

 

It's not like I'm shifting the blame on the teams. Well okay, I am allocating some fault to them, and with good reason: just look at those scores! The amount of times I've seen people YOLO at the dumbest places, the amount of times I've seen people AFK, the amount of times I've seen people with low camo ratings sitting out in the open, the amount of times I've seen people poke and expose the entire side of their tank for all the enemies to shoot at, the amount of times I see light tanks sitting in base, the amount of times I see heavies sniping from the back. The list goes on.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard


Ezz #672 Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:30 AM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 65657 battles
  • 35,493
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostFramFramson, on 17 January 2019 - 07:56 AM, said:

This is true, but it's also fair to assign a large value to luck in WoT. After all, it's generally agreed on that a player only impacts 20%-25% of the games they play.

Absolutely luck is involved, but i try to steer clear of using it in case the theorists assign too much weight to its impact.

 

S_D, i can look deeper into it later, but basically your wn8 in the wolverine isn't really 65% range. You'd need consistent dark purple to maintain that. Noting i wouldn't use wn8 as a basis for the less damage reliant classes, but for TDs damage is pretty much their game.


Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Puggsley #673 Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:06 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 64131 battles
  • 1,406
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

View PostSir_Direkin, on 16 January 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

 

Did you even look at the score cards posted? They're not a wide range of outcomes; they're mostly identical: me at the top for damage/exp (or close) and still lose. That's what makes it a statistical outlier.

 

Its the wins and losses and session stats I was looking at. I don't pay much attention to individual game score cards as they are not data, unless you post each and every one. You can support whatever the hell you want by being selective. 

 

And you are still falling into the beginners trap of looking at small sample sizes. Of course you will get more statistical outliers in a small sample, that's basic stats. Does it mean anything significant is the real question, and no it doesn't.

 

The other point is what are the other games looking like where you are not top damage and losing? Its impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion. Its like posting one replay where you get targeted by arty and then claiming you always get arty focused. Or posting a game where there is 3 arty and they never shoot you and trying to claim that arty always leaves you alone.

 

Here's a couple more for today. Notice anything?

 

What I do notice is that in the selected games you are top damage and losing. What are you like I the ones you don't show us.

 

Maybe its a positioning issue, are you doing the crucial early damage or are you farming at the end. Do you decide too early in the game that its a loss and you will just fall back to get more damage? Replays will be much more valuable in helping us understand what to say other than "gee you are getting shitty MM/RNG/whatever else".

 

The more and more of these examples you post means that it is much less likely that it is RNG and instead something you are doing independent of any MM or RNG issue.

 

Do you want to improve or is this just a place to whine?



Sir_Direkin #674 Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:17 PM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 11382 battles
  • 1,269
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016

View PostPuggsley, on 17 January 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:

Its the wins and losses and session stats I was looking at. I don't pay much attention to individual game score cards as they are not data, unless you post each and every one. You can support whatever the hell you want by being selective. 

 

No, it's still data depending what it is I'm trying to show. And what is it I'm trying to show? Clearly it's the distribution of damage from the team, and the frequency of 0-1 shots from players, these are the "no hope" games. I'm not going to show score cards where everyone contributed a reasonable amount and still lost, these games tend to be a bit more even. I'm not going to rage at a team and say "look at how overwhelmingly average this team is"; they were average, we could've played better. The ones in the score cards are [edited] terrible.

 

View PostPuggsley, on 17 January 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:

What I do notice is that in the selected games you are top damage and losing. What are you like I the ones you don't show us.

 

Top damage, like this one from the post at the top of this page?

What could've been the issue I had with that team?

 

Also a small selection of those were top damage and wins...

 

Score cards not shown are either average games and losses, or average wins.

 

View PostPuggsley, on 17 January 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:

Maybe its a positioning issue, are you doing the crucial early damage or are you farming at the end. Do you decide too early in the game that its a loss and you will just fall back to get more damage? Replays will be much more valuable in helping us understand what to say other than "gee you are getting shitty MM/RNG/whatever else".

 

I don't run XVM, so can't tell from the very start if the game's a loss. I put myself in positions where I can maximise damage and spot damage throughout the game, constantly moving as the game evolves, which is why I get close to top damage/exp frequently. If I was in a bad position I wouldn't be farming much late game damage with those teams when it's >7 vs 1. You'll find an unarmoured tank doesn't last long enough against that sort of opposition to deal much damage.

 

The only replay I have left for the Wolverine is the last game I played in it. I don't even have that tank anymore, and the crew has already been moved back into the T25/2 (because retraining discounts).

 

View PostPuggsley, on 17 January 2019 - 08:06 AM, said:

Do you want to improve or is this just a place to whine?

 

What's the name of this thread?

 

We have a thread for posting replays for review, and this isn't it. This is the designated vent thread. And FWIW, for losses in average teams I always think about what I could have done better, hence the constant improvement. I don't see how one can improve when getting a dud team that collapses within minutes.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard


Ezz #675 Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:29 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 65657 battles
  • 35,493
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostSir_Direkin, on 17 January 2019 - 08:17 PM, said:

]What's the name of this thread?

To be honest when there was a 'carried' and a 'failed to carry' thread it felt about right to me. Promoting 'rage' isn't really in keeping with a positive community. We tend to try to minimise toxicity on here if possible. I'd be happy enough if they closed this and just reverted to the failed to carry version.


Edited by Ezz, 17 January 2019 - 06:29 PM.

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


Puggsley #676 Posted 20 January 2019 - 03:23 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 64131 battles
  • 1,406
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

Totally agree. 

 

This is the "The world is against me and I don't like it" thread.

 

Tin foil hats on, I'm showing you selected observation points and calling it data...…

 

 



Quasinerdo #677 Posted 20 January 2019 - 03:34 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 16979 battles
  • 817
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    09-17-2012
In the World of War Gaming just remember than every Cloud has a brown lining....


 

 KraftLawrence - "Don’t be that guy camping and doing nothing while your team dies on another flank – then farm 3k damage and complain your team sucks. That guy is the worst."


Sir_Direkin #678 Posted 20 January 2019 - 06:33 PM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 11382 battles
  • 1,269
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016

View PostPuggsley, on 20 January 2019 - 03:23 PM, said:

Totally agree. 

 

This is the "The world is against me and I don't like it" thread.

 

Tin foil hats on, I'm showing you selected observation points and calling it data...…

 

Or for conjuring conspiracy theories based on reading what someone didn't write, and parroting talking points apparently.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard


Sir_Direkin #679 Posted 21 January 2019 - 05:07 AM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 11382 battles
  • 1,269
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016
Anyway, this is just a place to vent when having really shitty runs and the like. There's no sense in starting arguments over something that'll pass with time.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard






Also tagged with numpties, RNG, muppets, MM, ARRRGH

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users