Jump to content


RNG. How was the 25%+/- decided?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

Stohne #1 Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:29 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 28495 battles
  • 167
  • Member since:
    04-15-2017

Title says it all.

 

Personally I think it is far to wide a span.



_EXODUZ_ #2 Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:34 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34979 battles
  • 1,938
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014

http://forum.worldof...5#entry14867645

Block Quote

 -67% to be between -10% and 10%

 

Topic by brumbarr



Balc0ra #3 Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:38 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66275 battles
  • 16,274
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

You need 25+ on the high tbh.  As that "other game" showed even 10% screwed their players over even more vs even equal tiers. And considering how tier 8 is looking with the HT's amt.

 

But even with the explanation above. You could argue for the sake of frustration, that on the low rolls you could reduce it a bit. But you can't go to low on that either tbh. Not the way this game is built up.


Edited by Balc0ra, 10 November 2017 - 12:38 AM.


Gixxer66 #4 Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:50 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18038 battles
  • 405
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    01-11-2013

RNG. How was the 25%+/- decided?

 

They tossed a coin Heads 25% +/- Tails 15% +/-

 

Clearly heads won



Jigabachi #5 Posted 10 November 2017 - 02:24 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,029
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostStohne, on 10 November 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

Title says it all.

No.

 

Block Quote

Personally I think it is far to wide a span

Why?

 



Ferditude #6 Posted 10 November 2017 - 06:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 1251 battles
  • 638
  • Member since:
    11-22-2016

View PostStohne, on 10 November 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

Title says it all.

 

Personally I think it is far to wide a span.

 

they decide who they want to loose +then they get -25% 

_Horned_ #7 Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:03 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14991 battles
  • 37
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
deathstar touched me yesterday in my Conq for a 1863 shot, wasn't really happy about it to be honest :teethhappy:

anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #8 Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:03 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018

+ and - 25% is a nice number which you can use to rig games. No one will be able to tell if it's a "rigged" or "random" roll...

 

:trollface:



Phobos4321 #9 Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:26 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 43226 battles
  • 8,399
  • Member since:
    09-27-2011

View Post_Horned_, on 10 November 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

deathstar touched me yesterday in my Conq for a 1863 shot, wasn't really happy about it to be honest :teethhappy:

 

and you are sad because pen. or damage ?

AliceUnchained #10 Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:13 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
I heard it was agreed upon with a game of 'spin the vodka bottle'... 

Cobra6 #11 Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:27 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16332 battles
  • 15,770
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

It was decided because 25% is the maximum number of RNG before it becomes too frustrating too play for average players.

 

RNG is in the game to make money and to make the game slightly more addictive, it's basically a gambling mechanic where you get excited when you high roll and sad when you low-roll.

 

Cobra 6



AliceUnchained #12 Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:29 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 38414 battles
  • 8,928
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
Sad? Heh, well that's an understatement... Never kicked the cat because of it though. 

Aikl #13 Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:37 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

RNG is actually a genius business idea. RNG can allow just about anyone to have a good game once in a while - when all the stars align. That's good for player retention, particularly for below-average players. Yeah, it's a "noob feature", which goes along brilliantly with the concept of losing enough games to get a T10 tank and protect arty in IS-7. Luckily, WoT relies on things that actually can be learned as well, like positioning and 'vision mechanics' (parts of it, anyway).

 

RNG probably changes, though the range does not. Distribution, as noted above, is not that bad. If it was changed at some point(s), I would guess RNG is likely more noticeable, if not outright annoying, when the difference in 'power level' between the top- and bottom tiers in a match is lower - necessating a distribution change when the MM was 'eased up' a bit.

 

Off-topic:
The focus on player retention is, however, a bit of a pain combined with the matchmaker shifting the focus heavily towards the top three/five players in a match. If your team is down one top-tier tank (AFK, not even trying, going total ham) in a 3-5-7 match, you're gonna have a hard time winning that game. It's kind of a valid argument for skill-based MM, but that has other implications as well.

The only real solution to this is making sure those who only want to look at a battle is never top-tier. It makes zero difference for a 'bot' IS-3 to be in a T8 or T10 match. By 'bot', I mean not contributing in any way to the game; which should be kind of a requirement to play. WoT is not a right. If I actively sabotage my team by TK-ing or blocking teammates, I'll get a ban. If I passively sabotage my team, I worst-case get zero experience because I play like a bot. In the end, it's not dissimilar. You can even argue that early capping is toxic, as it's the passive alternative to TK-ing or blocking teammates to deny them damage or kills.


Edited by Aikl, 10 November 2017 - 11:39 AM.


HeidenSieker #14 Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:03 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,650
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View Post_EXODUZ_, on 10 November 2017 - 12:34 AM, said:

 

People don't seem to be understand that at all, though. I can't think why.

 

 



_EXODUZ_ #15 Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:10 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34979 battles
  • 1,938
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014

View PostHeidenSieker, on 10 November 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

 

People don't seem to be understand that at all, though. I can't think why.

 

 

 

Cause all they wanna do is splurt some bs without thinking.

AlphaTheRipper #16 Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:47 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 792 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    02-25-2017
RNG  - RIGGED NUMBER GENERATOR.
It is not random....... RANDOM means :accidental, chance, unintentional, unexpected, coincidental, random.
 RNG is RIGGED 25% more misses , 25% less penetrations, less damage.

That is not all.  It is not 25% per battle, but per 1000 battles.
It means, you can miss all shoots in a single game or few games in the row. True. It happens very often.
So you have 100% more
stress and dissatisfaction.
After that you have so many players quit this game already and game lost popularity so drastically.

RNG is one of the most stupid rules in this game. But not the only one.
Another stupid rule , similar to RNG , is MAP ROTATION.
It is not RANDOM but it is RIGGED too.
Wargaming choose certain maps trying to make it harder to play some kind of tanks on map.
And again, you have 100 % more stress, and 100 % less enjoy the game.
And again,
more and more dissatisfied players leaving the game.
Planing this game very often we feel like we are not players, but  only witnesses.

 

 


Martijn_mk2 #17 Posted 10 November 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5840 battles
  • 291
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013
Cowbingo.

(They obviously rigged one of the cows because everything is rigged)

Vajsravana #18 Posted 10 November 2017 - 05:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32827 battles
  • 896
  • Member since:
    04-10-2013

0% is not enough, 50% is too much.

 

That's it... I don't think any more complex idea was involved.



Dr_Oolen #19 Posted 10 November 2017 - 05:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 21821 battles
  • 1,603
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
i think they rolled a dice

Thejagdpanther #20 Posted 10 November 2017 - 05:30 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34548 battles
  • 4,423
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

A stupid question:

should be more accurate say that the actual rng is 50% (-25 to +25)?

A "real" 25% rng should be -12,5 to +12,5%?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users