Jump to content


Is there only one mode in fact: "A 3-minute execution of noobies"?

a serious question

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Why do you think most of the games take 3-5 minutes? (57 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Why do you think most of the games take 3-5 minutes?

  1. It's just a matter of coincidence. (29 votes [48.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.33%

  2. Wargaming cheats us all since they control the result of any game before it starts. (31 votes [51.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.67%

Vote Hide poll

shogun_PL #1 Posted 21 October 2017 - 11:25 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39280 battles
  • 82
  • [W0RMS] W0RMS
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012

Hi All,

 

after quite a few dozen of games (having seen a looot in this game), and having played thousands of all those "up-to-5-minutes-games" (which is most of the games played by everyone), I'd like to ask a few SERIOUS questions, both to the Players and to the representatives of the Developer:

 

1. Does Wargaming have absolute control over the matchmaker and therefore players in fact have practically no influence at who will win and lose a particular game?

 

2. Why are there so many games which take 3 minutes (up to 5 mins if you are lucky) due to the HIGHLY UNBALANCED teams, for which 'mode' I can only invent one name: A 3-MINUTE EXECUTION OF NOOBIES?

 

3. How can it be that every second game I get at least 5 (usually more!) players in a team who take ZERO dmg and therefore, in fact, I lose the game before I start playing it?

 

! 4. Why aren't there any players (after a reasonable amount of battles) who have around 10-20% (super-weak) or 80-90% (super-strong) winrate? Statistically there should be such players IF THE MATCHMAKER IS RANDOM INDEED???

 

!! 5. Assuming that Wargaming needs to control the matchmaker in order not to allow players who get around 0% or 100% winrate, why aren't there matches in a way: super-weak to super-weak, medium-to-medium, and super-strong to super-strong? Wouldn't that result in an average of around 50%-winrate battles? And wouldn't that make games last around the predicted 15 minutes???

 

Since my questions are precise and absolutely serious, I expect some serious answers, please.

I'd also like to ask for some serious support for this cause from the REAL players' side (and I will not agree to closing the topic for any vaguely justified reason).

 

Regards

shogun_PL

 

(PS. I don't care whether I win or lose AS LONG AS THE GAME IS FAIR; I'm sick of all those moderated 3-minute executions; they're just no fun at all, no matter which side you are on.)

 



Dundato #2 Posted 21 October 2017 - 11:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26139 battles
  • 714
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012
ma games take 14 min odds, you must be unlucky

RinTin_NL #3 Posted 21 October 2017 - 11:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14572 battles
  • 669
  • Member since:
    08-08-2014
The only thing to look forward to are the 'HD' maps, for the rest...

Edited by RinTin_NL, 21 October 2017 - 11:33 PM.


Erwin_Von_Braun #4 Posted 21 October 2017 - 11:34 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View Postshogun_PL, on 21 October 2017 - 10:25 PM, said:

Hi All,

 

after quite a few dozen of games (having seen a looot in this game), and having played thousands of all those "up-to-5-minutes-games" (which is most of the games played by everyone), I'd like to ask a few SERIOUS questions, both to the Players and to the representatives of the Developer:

 

1. Does Wargaming have absolute control over the matchmaker and therefore players in fact have practically no influence at who will win and lose a particular game?

 

2. Why are there so many games which take 3 minutes (up to 5 mins if you are lucky) due to the HIGHLY UNBALANCED teams, for which 'mode' I can only invent one name: A 3-MINUTE EXECUTION OF NOOBIES?

 

3. How can it be that every second game I get at least 5 (usually more!) players in a team who take ZERO dmg and therefore, in fact, I lose the game before I start playing it?

 

! 4. Why aren't there any players (after a reasonable amount of battles) who have around 10-20% (super-weak) or 80-90% (super-strong) winrate? Statistically there should be such players IF THE MATCHMAKER IS RANDOM INDEED???

 

!! 5. Assuming that Wargaming needs to control the matchmaker in order not to allow players who get around 0% or 100% winrate, why aren't there matches in a way: super-weak to super-weak, medium-to-medium, and super-strong to super-strong? Wouldn't that result in an average of around 50%-winrate battles? And wouldn't that make games last around the predicted 15 minutes???

 

Since my questions are precise and absolutely serious, I expect some serious answers, please.

I'd also like to ask for some serious support for this cause from the REAL players' side (and I will not agree to closing the topic for any vaguely justified reason).

 

Regards

shogun_PL

 

(PS. I don't care whether I win or lose AS LONG AS THE GAME IS FAIR; I'm sick of all those moderated 3-minute executions; they're just no fun at all, no matter which side you are on.)

 

 

Randoms are about as random as something that's not very random.

Sebenza #5 Posted 22 October 2017 - 01:38 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13652 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
Team composition takes into account vehicle classes and vehicle tiers, everything else is random and player skill is in the "everything else" category. The snowball effect is just a byproduct of it and so I am thoroughly convinced all players will end up with the exact winrate they deserve after enough battles, unless you frequently platoon with better players like I do:trollface:

UrQuan #6 Posted 22 October 2017 - 08:05 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19394 battles
  • 6,113
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View Postshogun_PL, on 21 October 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

 

 

! 4. Why aren't there any players (after a reasonable amount of battles) who have around 10-20% (super-weak) or 80-90% (super-strong) winrate? Statistically there should be such players IF THE MATCHMAKER IS RANDOM INDEED???

 

 

 

Selected this, as it shows you have no idea of how randomness works. Such low or high WR would only be possible in smaller competition groups or if WG did indeed rig the game to make it easier for the good players & shaft the bad players at the same time (this isn't the case). WoT is 15 vs 15 without respawns, this results in a much narrower win/loss grouping, as you have less effect on the outcome (both positively as negatively)

 

Due to above, WR of players will gravitate towards 50% (48-49% actually, because draws are a thing). That's what randomness does. The furhter away you are from 50%, the more you fight against statistics & the harder it gets to go further above/below 50%. No rigging needed, randomness & statistics will already take care that people gravitate towards 50%.

 

On the rapid collapse of teams: snowball effect. No respawns, so every tank is valuable. For every tank a team loses, it's one gun behind on the other. Meaning the team that lost a tank will have a harder time now taking out an enemy tank & have an easier time losing yet another tank, hence the snowball effect, the more tanks you lose, the faster the remaining ones die.

You'll notice that most long games (that reach to 15 minutes) are matches where very few tanks die. So the message if you like long games: don't die & don't kill the enemy too fast either. Kill the enemy too fast & you get a snowball effect going, where you can kill enemy tanks even faster as they have less guns then you.


Edited by UrQuan, 22 October 2017 - 01:30 PM.


Homer_J #7 Posted 22 October 2017 - 08:25 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

Hmmm over 55% win rate after over 35k battles, believes WG is rigging it.

 

So exactly why have they been rigging it in your favour?



iztok #8 Posted 22 October 2017 - 08:40 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35215 battles
  • 2,459
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

> I'm sick of all those moderated 3-minute executions;

Moderated? Would you'd like to say that those bad players, that die in 2 minutes, have their brain revired by WG, just to scr_w your game? Eh... :sceptic:



roachex #9 Posted 22 October 2017 - 09:43 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20261 battles
  • 607
  • [RIGA] RIGA
  • Member since:
    06-01-2012
Well ranked mode should solve MM, and we clearly see how good and effective it is.

Aikl #10 Posted 22 October 2017 - 09:52 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

In a sense OP is right; it's not really fun to get roflstomp-battles. If you can find a way to force people to play how they "should", Wargaming would more than likely assign you SerB as a permanent servant.

 

Hint: Part of the problem is also what makes WoT successful and fun even if you're not very good at the game. If you lose enough battles, you can get a T10. Sticking to lower-tiers would kind of make sense if someone just plays for fun, but it's a bit shitty to force someone who pays for the game to play T6. Matchmaking might be a clue, but you'd still get people who wants to drive big fudging tanks around, not a little Cromwell.

 

That being said, the portion of players who plays for fun (i.e. not because winning or competing is fun) might be equally happy if they got stowed in matches together. In a sense it would be somewhat similar to what we currently have - newcomers have 'shielded' status until 200-ish battles (at low tiers) to prevent them getting sealclubbed all the time.

(Funny thing is, for many players that might be enough time, Kislyi said recently that a player sticking with WoT for a couple of months stays "forever".)



roachex #11 Posted 22 October 2017 - 09:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20261 battles
  • 607
  • [RIGA] RIGA
  • Member since:
    06-01-2012
Althought it sux to see dmg numbers when you have close to 50% of enemy team in hp shot, but still lose a game.

Homer_J #12 Posted 22 October 2017 - 10:00 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postshogun_PL, on 21 October 2017 - 11:25 PM, said:

 

! 4. Why aren't there any players (after a reasonable amount of battles) who have around 10-20% (super-weak) or 80-90% (super-strong) winrate? Statistically there should be such players IF THE MATCHMAKER IS RANDOM INDEED???

 

 

 

I've had runs of 90% win rate and 10% over a reasonable number of battles.

 

But when you get to a large number of battles then the influence one single player can have in a team of 15 is not that great.



Bennie182 #13 Posted 22 October 2017 - 10:12 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 51455 battles
  • 1,251
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
the questions answers itself.

BravelyRanAway #14 Posted 22 October 2017 - 10:29 AM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 22343 battles
  • 8,721
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View Postshogun_PL, on 21 October 2017 - 10:25 PM, said:

Wargaming cheats us all since they control the result of any game before it starts. 

 

So.... you're telling me that your 55% WR was gifted to you by WG and has nothing to do with how you perform. 

That being the case.....why are you still here?



Cobra6 #15 Posted 22 October 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,513
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

About a month or 1,5 ago I was averaging 65%+ wins and 3K wn8. Then I reported a sold account to Wargaming that showed a consistent drop from 60%/2700wn8 to 42%/500wn8 and Wargaming refused to ban said account.

 

I told them there was *NO* way someone could drop that much without either suffering braindamage or the account being sold. WG still refused to act and after some back and forth they forcefully closed the ticket in frustration because they knew I was right but refused to act.

 

Magically suddenly I got MM where I was only bottom tier and my stats plummeted to 45% levels while before I was doing consistent 65%+. Didn't really surprise me and I just keep playing but hey, MM is completely random comrade :teethhappy:

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 22 October 2017 - 10:35 AM.


Bennie182 #16 Posted 22 October 2017 - 10:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 51455 battles
  • 1,251
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostCobra6, on 22 October 2017 - 10:34 AM, said:

About a month or 1,5 ago I was averaging 65%+ wins and 3K wn8. Then I reported a sold account to Wargaming that showed a consistent drop from 60%/2700wn8 to 42%/500wn8 and Wargaming refused to ban said account.

 

I told them there was *NO* way someone could drop that much without either suffering braindamage or the account being sold. WG still refused to act and after some back and forth they forcefully closed the ticket in frustration because they knew I was right but refused to act.

 

Magically suddenly I got MM where I was only bottom tier and my stats plummeted to 45% levels while before I was doing consistent 65%+. Didn't really surprise me and I just keep playing but hey, MM is completely random comrade :teethhappy:

 

Cobra 6

They wanted to show you that it was all your fault your wins dropped and the same happened to the guy you reported:P

Not only wins are influenced. RNG as well, since shots that are fully aimed still land in the ground etc.


Edited by Bennie182, 22 October 2017 - 10:52 AM.


HugSeal #17 Posted 22 October 2017 - 10:58 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22717 battles
  • 2,010
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012
Play less tier 5, 6 and 1 tanks and you'll play with less bad players.

BravelyRanAway #18 Posted 22 October 2017 - 11:01 AM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 22343 battles
  • 8,721
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostCobra6, on 22 October 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

About a month or 1,5 ago I was averaging 65%+ wins and 3K wn8. Then I reported a sold account to Wargaming that showed a consistent drop from 60%/2700wn8 to 42%/500wn8 and Wargaming refused to ban said account.

So..........you were never a good player.........you were just chosen?:P

 


Edited by BravelyRanAway, 22 October 2017 - 11:03 AM.


Junglist_ #19 Posted 22 October 2017 - 11:01 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35855 battles
  • 1,331
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostCobra6, on 22 October 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

About a month or 1,5 ago I was averaging 65%+ wins and 3K wn8. Then I reported a sold account to Wargaming that showed a consistent drop from 60%/2700wn8 to 42%/500wn8 and Wargaming refused to ban said account.

 

I told them there was *NO* way someone could drop that much without either suffering braindamage or the account being sold. WG still refused to act and after some back and forth they forcefully closed the ticket in frustration because they knew I was right but refused to act.

 

Magically suddenly I got MM where I was only bottom tier and my stats plummeted to 45% levels while before I was doing consistent 65%+. Didn't really surprise me and I just keep playing but hey, MM is completely random comrade :teethhappy:

 

Cobra 6

 

Wait don't me even the legendary Cobra6  now believes in rigged mm just because of CS incompetence

Cobra6 #20 Posted 22 October 2017 - 11:06 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,513
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostJunglist_, on 22 October 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

 

Wait don't me even the legendary Cobra6  now believes in rigged mm just because of CS incompetence

 

Nah man, it's just a coincidence, like I said. The stars aligned and the sun rose in the North.

 

But on a serious note: No the real reason why my stats dropped is that I started platooning again while playing anything but T9/T10 meaning I was bottom tier every match pretty much. Makes it hard to keep doing well especially in tier 7/8.

My 2 friends that quit the game 4 years ago started playing again and Wargaming already managed to piss one off so much that he left again :teethhappy:

 

Edit:

*BUT* Wargaming does influence matchmaking, they've admitted that already with platoon MM. They do actively put platoons in worse matchmaking than solo players. It is something to keep in the back of your mind while you play. Whether they do that for solo players is something they'd have to admit because there is no way for players to find out unless they get a hold of the actual server software.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 22 October 2017 - 11:14 AM.






Also tagged with a serious question

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users