Jump to content


Damage RNG is RIGGED

RNG Alfa Damage WoT Economy

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

anonym_VJVVUp5heVv5 #41 Posted 14 March 2018 - 01:19 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,055
  • Member since:
    01-15-2019

To even formulate a response would endow the op with more intelligence than he deserves.

 

Personally i think we should all boycott commenting on these idiotic and childish posts...

 

 

 

 



unhappy_bunny #42 Posted 14 March 2018 - 01:40 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19058 battles
  • 3,136
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostRage_Quit_Inc, on 14 March 2018 - 12:25 PM, said:

 

they can bolster this effect further by the dispersion making the grind hard making players spend more, the same as a bounced shell a missed shell brings them more, (lets ignore the fact that we they can of course make the bounced or absorbed shells doing sustained module damage making players use their consumables bring them even more and making that grind just that little bit harder.)

This theory may work with some players, but I have only purchased Premium tanks and Premium time to provide crew training and to shorten the grind on other standard tanks, Not because I have trouble facing certain tanks. I have plenty of consubibles, kindly provided by WG, during recent event, so I have no need to buy them with gold. I rarely fire Premium Ammo, so when I do I buy it with silver which I earn playing standard tanks. 

 

We can go on for ever but that's just it nothing can ever be proven. Agreed. 

 

In my opinion are they rigging it some way to make more money? Yes I think so based on the fact who they are and what they have done in the fast and patents filed etc

My opinion is that I havent nnoticed any rigging. I accept that it is possible, but I see no reason why WG should do so, and certainly not on an individual player basis. Saying that, congratulations on mentioning "the patent". 

 

Can I prove it: no but hey we are all still here playing.

True. We cant prove it either way. I'm still playing and still enjoying the game, so is there a problem? There isnt a problem for me. Cant speak for anyone else though. 

 



jabster #43 Posted 14 March 2018 - 01:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12627 battles
  • 24,998
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 14 March 2018 - 12:40 PM, said:

 

 

The problem is that yes a lot of the it’s all rigged against me theories can indeed be proven. I get worse teams or RNG, why can’t that be shown. Indeed Baldrickk produced a tool to look at team composition and so far it points towards the MM doesn’t care about team or player skill.



K_A #44 Posted 14 March 2018 - 01:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13689 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View Postdiscontinued, on 14 March 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

To even formulate a response would endow the op with more intelligence than he deserves.

 

Personally i think we should all boycott commenting on these idiotic and childish posts...

 

 

 

 

 

I look at it as disposable entertainment. The forums would be really boring without these threads.

jack_timber #45 Posted 14 March 2018 - 01:55 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 36410 battles
  • 2,659
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

View PostRage_Quit_Inc, on 14 March 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

your kidding right :trollface:

 

Damage isn't rigged but that's not saying the game isn't influenced anywhere else

 

Er yes:)

Jigabachi #46 Posted 14 March 2018 - 02:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 20,572
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostK_A, on 14 March 2018 - 01:53 PM, said:

I look at it as disposable entertainment. The forums would be really boring without these threads.

Yes, this was a fun thread. OP starts with admitting that he might not have enough evidence, followed by the story of his life, so you still expect some semi-decent research. And then he comes with a single match as evidence. Glorious. 

That's like listening to a good joke with a fun punchline at the end.

 

Besides that, what would be a day without a tiny dose of "I don't want to live on this planet anymore"?


Edited by Jigabachi, 14 March 2018 - 02:11 PM.


IncandescentGerbil #47 Posted 14 March 2018 - 02:24 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35775 battles
  • 1,544
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
I just rolled for under 1500 in my FV4005. Admittedly the previous shots were 2020, 1960 and 1925, but I'm convinced the 1500 was rigged.

Lycopersicon #48 Posted 14 March 2018 - 02:51 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10747 battles
  • 3,643
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014
I can totally trump this. Last time I played ARL 44, all three non-kill-shots that I planted rolled below 300. I'm sure I have had some games where my only hit lowrolled, but we already have enough evidence without those. Let's sue WG together!

anonym_VJVVUp5heVv5 #49 Posted 14 March 2018 - 03:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,055
  • Member since:
    01-15-2019

View PostK_A, on 14 March 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

I look at it as disposable entertainment. The forums would be really boring without these threads.

Too true 



Noo_Noo #50 Posted 14 March 2018 - 04:05 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22437 battles
  • 2,785
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostSimeon85, on 14 March 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

Why is it with all these tin foil hat threads the OP's always come out with some sort of back story about their profession?, it adds nothing when their data is so weak. 

 

I disagree. It adds a certain comical element to it. 

baribal_80 #51 Posted 14 March 2018 - 04:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23474 battles
  • 754
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012

View PostThalean, on 13 March 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

Hi guys,

 

OK, first of all, title must contain the word -probably- but I didn't add it to attract a little bit more attention.

And I know that our sample size is not enough for a scientific research, so skeptics please calm down.

 

But guys,

 

After playing this thing for more than 20K battles,I feel it in my heart, that they made a little sneaky adjustment.

And also because of my profession, I can understand why they needed it.

 

Here the math:

I'm in service sector, specifically in telecommunication "revenue management".

So we have these millions of subscribers and we always want more revenue (capitalism :sceptic:) but we are afraid of customer complains.

Our solution is always to make a little tiny price "revision" to an -under the radar- item, like package overuse fee or something like that which will effect everyone jussssst a little bit but the cumulative gain for company will matter.

 

Now WoT case:

We want to sell more premium time or tanks. 

What we need is make WoT economy less profitable for all.

But we are afraid of our community so we can't just increase shell costs or tank repair costs.

Hey, here the solution! Let's make them use more shells for less damage (a.k.a revenue)

But as we can't reduce alfa damage for all tanks, why not make a little adjustment to our damage RNG settings?

Like pushing RNG more often to that negative 25% than standard but also allow some positive %25 as well.

Maybe 5% in average. (do you accept 5% less alfa in your tank?)

 

Think about it.

It's very hard to detect because off all that kill shots that naturally hit less and because of occasional positive 25% shots.

Also it will take too much time to prove "scientifically".

 

(9 clear* shots, just 1 above 390, average 373.5 damage. -4,2% than 390) (*clear means you can get full potential of your alfa damage, not a kill shot etc)

 

(watched it for you: 8 clear shots, just 1 above 490, average 464.75 damage. -5.1% than 490)

 

Please share your own thoughts and "feelings" ;) about this issue, gg.

 

Great sample size mate. 2 games for 2 players. You should be a statician. You can have 40% that get below avg dmg rolls on a tank a if 40% of the tanks get above average rng and 20% get avg. Plus your dmg rng will vary game to game. What matters is that avg dmg for the tank across all players and games is close to avg. So using 2 examples is like saying global warming doesn't exist because it's hot in Warsaw today.

Noo_Noo #52 Posted 14 March 2018 - 04:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22437 battles
  • 2,785
  • Member since:
    05-05-2013

View PostIncandescentGerbil, on 14 March 2018 - 02:24 PM, said:

I just rolled for under 1500 in my FV4005. Admittedly the previous shots were 2020, 1960 and 1925, but I'm convinced the 1500 was rigged.

 

I bet it was a Batchat too. You know one of those tanks that have mysterious armour. That 30mm  thick plate that acts like a 500mm thick plate 

Rage_Quit_Inc #53 Posted 14 March 2018 - 04:31 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5211 battles
  • 192
  • [RQI] RQI
  • Member since:
    06-26-2013

View PostNoo_Noo, on 14 March 2018 - 03:06 PM, said:

 

I bet it was a Batchat too. You know one of those tanks that have mysterious armour. That 30mm  thick plate that acts like a 500mm thick plate

 

That's not right it would have just been a tracking shot with no damage when he fired HESH if it was a magical Batchat :trollface:

Shaade_Silentpaw #54 Posted 14 March 2018 - 04:53 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23617 battles
  • 459
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

Alpha damage RNG gives me nightmares now.

Last night I dreamt that I rolled 360 with an E100 AP shell. (750 alpha, yes I know it's impossible - it was a dream)

 

The dream itself was about something besides WoT entirely, but somehow that one thing managed to sneak in there...



IncandescentGerbil #55 Posted 14 March 2018 - 05:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35775 battles
  • 1,544
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015

View PostNoo_Noo, on 14 March 2018 - 04:06 PM, said:

 

I bet it was a Batchat too. You know one of those tanks that have mysterious armour. That 30mm  thick plate that acts like a 500mm thick plate 

To be fair, it was on an arty.7 Still a bit daft they don't give SPGs my min roll in hp though. 


Edited by IncandescentGerbil, 14 March 2018 - 07:57 PM.


spamhamstar #56 Posted 14 March 2018 - 06:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 64313 battles
  • 1,854
  • [LLAY] LLAY
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View Postdiscontinued, on 14 March 2018 - 12:19 PM, said:

To even formulate a response would endow the op with more intelligence than he deserves.

 

Personally i think we should all boycott commenting on these idiotic and childish posts...

 

 

 

 

 

Just a second here, are you sure you're a dinger?

K_A #57 Posted 14 March 2018 - 06:53 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13689 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View Postspamhamstar, on 14 March 2018 - 05:39 PM, said:

 

Just a second here, are you sure you're a dinger?

 

He's still learning the ropes. All the rest of us are just so lazy at actually organising our bi-annual "new members' welcoming evening" that he hasn't yet learnt the appropriate behavior. 

 

And Rusty's basement doesn't count. That's an initiation ritual, not a learning event.. :hiding:



BravelyRanAway #58 Posted 14 March 2018 - 07:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23289 battles
  • 10,553
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostThalean, on 13 March 2018 - 09:17 PM, said:

Also it will take too much time to prove "scientifically".

That must be true.......................................as no one has done it in 8 years.



AliceUnchained #59 Posted 14 March 2018 - 08:28 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38955 battles
  • 9,365
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostThalean, on 13 March 2018 - 10:17 PM, said:

Hi guys,

 

OK, first of all, title must contain the word -probably- but I didn't add it to attract a little bit more attention.

And I know that our sample size is not enough for a scientific research, so skeptics please calm down.

 

In other words pointless and meaningless, and there was really no need to create the thread...

 

View PostThalean, on 13 March 2018 - 10:46 PM, said:

You can't defraud at telecommunications as it is generally heavily regulated by governments.

In our case, we are of course inform our customers about the price increase actions but heeey who reads that invoice footnote?

My example is just to explain how companies think about "creating" more revenue from same customer.

But you have a point, this theory-crafting includes WG being nefarious.

 

Last I checked you're not allowed to 'inform' your customers of any price changes merely through a foot note on the invoice... You are obligated to inform them before charging them, and allow them the possibility to object to it and/or cancel the agreement. You can only invoice at price rates which have been agreed upon before.

 


Edited by AliceUnchained, 14 March 2018 - 08:35 PM.


Thalean #60 Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:00 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26819 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    04-22-2013

View PostAliceUnchained, on 14 March 2018 - 07:28 PM, said:

 

Last I checked you're not allowed to 'inform' your customers of any price changes merely through a foot note on the invoice... You are obligated to inform them before charging them, and allow them the possibility to object to it and/or cancel the agreement. You can only invoice at price rates which have been agreed upon before.

 

 

:facepalm:

It's not relevant to this thread but just to relieve you..

 

You are right, you have to inform your customer prior to the price revision. That's why companies generally use the invoice that reach customer before the planned revision date. (Like February invoice if the revision is planned to March 20) 

Moreover, in my country you have to inform customer from 2 distinct medium. So if the revision is well planned, we generally use the "prior" invoice + web site, if the revision somehow rushed up in the last minute, we use sms + web site.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users