Jump to content


Do you think you know how many steamrolls you get?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

Procjon #1 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:30 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 52211 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

For those who feel like the game gets more and more fast battles either loss or win i have some numbers to show why we have this feeling in our guts. 

 

I count a game as a steamroll when winning team has 10-15 players alive at the end of a game. Each batch contains 100 games. I did 200 games so far but i keep on collecting more results as i want to see bigger 'population' for my little research and what is the percentage of steamrolls among all battles i play.

 

100.png

 

So i have 38% of steamrolls in my battles. I feel it is too much.

 

 


Edited by Procjon, 31 January 2018 - 03:32 AM.


Laur_Balaur_XD #2 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:51 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35365 battles
  • 640
  • [-WBZ-] -WBZ-
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

I agree 38% is too damn high.

And look at the draws percent, just 1 draw in 200 battles... I miss the old times when we had more balanced teams and games lasted more, now a game ends in 4-5 minutes and you can guess the outcome of it (win/loss) after the first 1-2 minutes.



Carantanien #3 Posted 31 January 2018 - 07:03 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16815 battles
  • 1,518
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011

Not all 15-5 battles are steamrolls. Few days ago had a battle when we won 15-5 or 15-3 and just before the end of the battle i checked HP of my allies. We were all one shot :D



h4ctor #4 Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:15 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16443 battles
  • 1,819
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

i would say around 1/3 of games being a steamroll is accurate

 

but it also depends on modes you play,an attack/defense can be a competetive and slow game even tho it might end up being a 15-5...on the other hand maps like Kharkov or Stalingrad always feel like 3 minutes affairs no matter the result



OIias_of_Sunhillow #5 Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:21 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 23359 battles
  • 2,041
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

I too see a lot of 'Steamrolls', but the flipside is true too.

 

Just recently, 2-3 weeks, I've noticed a lot of, 'edge of the seat', finishes.

 

Some real close nail-biters, and exciting battles.

 



ZlatanArKung #6 Posted 31 January 2018 - 08:42 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
I actively try to create situations where my team can steamroll the enemy team.

Dr_ownape #7 Posted 31 January 2018 - 12:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 40613 battles
  • 5,140
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013
I find that the better the quality of players the chances of the game lasting longer are higher. But then also if each side has a plethora of red line snippers bobs those tend to last the 15 mins too :teethhappy:

juonimies #8 Posted 31 January 2018 - 12:57 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43333 battles
  • 323
  • [KARJU] KARJU
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011
I just wait some smart*** to start yelling "replays or this didn't happen!"

NoPoet406 #9 Posted 31 January 2018 - 01:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2330 battles
  • 465
  • [USAW] USAW
  • Member since:
    07-01-2016
WoT is the first game I've played competitive online, except for Doom ten years ago and a couple of days playing Star Trek Elite Force. I cannot recall any mismatches, although these are not the same type of game as WoT, but it is hard to imagine many other games being as unbalanced as WoT.

Steamroller battles are just so common. I find that now that I'm playing better, eg sticking to low tiers to actually learn the basics and get to properly know my tanks, I get a lot more steamroller battles in my favour, since I am getting like 2-3 kills per battle on average now. But there have been a significant number of battles where I have got 3-4 kills and done 450 damage, but my team has collapses and I've been overrun - bearing in mind this is at tier 2, where 450 damage is a lot. My cruiser 3 has gone from a 27% win rate (from when I was a new player) to only 31%. Steamroller battles happen to some tanks more than others - some tanks just can't win games.

Homer_J #10 Posted 31 January 2018 - 01:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27030 battles
  • 27,666
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostProcjon, on 31 January 2018 - 02:30 AM, said:

For those who feel like the game gets more and more fast battles either loss or win i have some numbers to show why we have this feeling in our guts. 

 

 

 

So how many did you get 5 years ago?

 

No point getting today's figures if you have nothing but fond memories seen through rose tinted glasses to compare with.



Element6_TheSprout #11 Posted 31 January 2018 - 01:28 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28075 battles
  • 9,673
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 31 January 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

So how many did you get 5 years ago?

 

No point getting today's figures if you have nothing but fond memories seen through rose tinted glasses to compare with.

Just to be "that guy"

 

How do we really know it is seen through rose tinted glasses if we can't confirm either way? It's not like every human observation ever has been flawed by bias. I was a kid in the 80s and early 90s, and I vividly remember there being more snow in these parts than what we get today. Googling it now our national statistics center confirms that the time period between 1967 through 1990 were indeed colder and had more snow that we've had in the last decade and a half. Without this confirmation one could simply have said "But you were young then, you spent more time outdoors playing and as such you just remember it like that". So in this particular case my potentially biased recollection wasn't biased at all. It was true.

 

Which begs the question; Why shoot down the messenger when you can't confirm your own statement?



jabster #12 Posted 31 January 2018 - 01:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,670
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 31 January 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

Just to be "that guy"

 

How do we really know it is seen through rose tinted glasses if we can't confirm either way? It's not like every human observation ever has been flawed by bias. I was a kid in the 80s and early 90s, and I vividly remember there being more snow in these parts than what we get today. Googling it now our national statistics center confirms that the time period between 1967 through 1990 were indeed colder and had more snow that we've had in the last decade and a half. Without this confirmation one could simply have said "But you were young then, you spent more time outdoors playing and as such you just remember it like that". So in this particular case my potentially biased recollection wasn't biased at all. It was true.

 

Which begs the question; Why shoot down the messenger when you can't confirm your own statement?

 

I think the important part is the first sentence.



Enforcer1975 #13 Posted 31 January 2018 - 02:13 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18361 battles
  • 9,842
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 31 January 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

 

So how many did you get 5 years ago?

 

No point getting today's figures if you have nothing but fond memories seen through rose tinted glasses to compare with.

Tbh i remember more games being "close" and lasting long than them being 3 min. steamrolls but that could be just me. 

The only hope you have nowadays with the increasing amount of one sided games in the past year is to be on the winning side and get enough damage done or at least get a lot of damage done before the enemy team gets you in case they plow through your team like they weren't even there. 


Edited by Enforcer1975, 31 January 2018 - 02:13 PM.


Element6_TheSprout #14 Posted 31 January 2018 - 02:28 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28075 battles
  • 9,673
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Postjabster, on 31 January 2018 - 01:37 PM, said:

I think the important part is the first sentence.

I can confirm that I am a guy :P

 

But yes, the important thing is indeed the first sentence. But even though we do not have numbers from past times there are some things we can use to at least give us a few things to consider, if we want to ponder the issue. There are some ifs here, so it's all mostly theoretical guesstimation. 

 

It could very well be that...

- The game has a lower influx of new players now than compared to the past.

- If the above is true, then logic dictates that in the remaining active playerbase there is an ever increasing saturation of skilled crews since active players play and accumulate crew XP over time. They also accumulate credits, so it's not unreasonable that there is equipment saturation going on also.

- If the above is indeed true, then any given team as a whole, on average, becomes stronger.

- The game has seen quite a bit of content expansion over the last 2 years at least, meaning a number of players, me included, start off new lines with relatively fresh crews compared to the overall mentioned saturation.

- These issues can, in certain situations, augment the well known "snowball effect".

 

There are other things as well, but since this is all just theory without an apparent means of confirmation I won't bother list them all, the above should be enough to convey my way of thinking and explain why I too think that I exprience more rolls now than I did in the past, in either direction of course.

 

 



NUKLEAR_SLUG #15 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26618 battles
  • 1,611
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 31 January 2018 - 02:28 PM, said:

I can confirm that I am a guy :P

 

Replay or it didn't happen.



Element6_TheSprout #16 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:19 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28075 battles
  • 9,673
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 31 January 2018 - 03:07 PM, said:

Replay or it didn't happen.

Girls don't exist on the internet, don't you know this?



Aikl #17 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:30 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 3,996
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostProcjon, on 31 January 2018 - 02:30 AM, said:

(...)

 

So, 38% of 100 battles have been steamrolls. Doesn't really tell us all that much. Say, how was your stats after this session? Nothing enables a roflstomp like a failing T10 in a 3-5-7 game.



Enforcer1975 #18 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:44 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18361 battles
  • 9,842
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 31 January 2018 - 03:07 PM, said:

 

Replay or it didn't happen.

 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 31 January 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

Girls don't exist on the internet, don't you know this?

 



AliceUnchained #19 Posted 31 January 2018 - 03:53 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,521
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postjuonimies, on 31 January 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

I just wait some smart*** to start yelling "replays or this didn't happen!"

 

Well... Collecting data certainly is a step in the right direction. But the way it is presented now, who's to say it's not made up? Or contains mistakes? Passing over the source material really would help backing it up.

Element6_TheSprout #20 Posted 31 January 2018 - 04:11 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28075 battles
  • 9,673
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostAliceUnchained, on 31 January 2018 - 03:53 PM, said:

Well... Collecting data certainly is a step in the right direction. But the way it is presented now, who's to say it's not made up? Or contains mistakes? Passing over the source material really would help backing it up.

It wouldn't help much unfortunately, even a substantial samplesize from one player doesn't neccessarily mean it is representative. You, for instance, have a draw ratio of 1.1% while I have 0.76%, so even you samplesize of 36531 battles isn't the same as mine of 27215 battles. I would call both samplesizes substantial, in their own right. We both have a good datasets, but they are contradicting eachother. Since you are a much better player than me, if I was asked to guess, I would say you were likely to have a lower drawrate than me since it would be more likely you would be able to prevent more draws than me in the long run.

 

People are often fond of claiming that stuff will mitigate over a large number of battles, but this is indicative of that not really being true.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users