Jump to content


Damage RNG is RIGGED

RNG Alfa Damage WoT Economy

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

AliceUnchained #61 Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 39029 battles
  • 9,502
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostThalean, on 14 March 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:

 

: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.

 

And yet you were the one to bring it up in the first place... So perhaps reserve those face palms for your own silly unrelated, irrelevant posts (starting with the opening one) hmm? 

spamhamstar #62 Posted 15 March 2018 - 09:49 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 64313 battles
  • 2,471
  • [WIKD] WIKD
  • Member since:
    12-02-2012

View PostK_A, on 14 March 2018 - 05:53 PM, said:

 

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:

 

You guys have changed, it's sad to see standards slip at one of our greatest institutions :(

 

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 14 March 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

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

 

I thought the OP proved it in his opening post?  He had numbers & replays & everything.

Edited by spamhamstar, 15 March 2018 - 09:50 AM.


BravelyRanAway #63 Posted 15 March 2018 - 09:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 24334 battles
  • 11,845
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View Postspamhamstar, on 15 March 2018 - 08:49 AM, said:

I thought the OP proved it in his opening post?  He had numbers & replays & everything.

Oh come on, he actually posted the math!.........didn't you read his math......:angry:

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

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.

.......oh wait?:amazed:



mroz123456 #64 Posted 16 December 2018 - 03:52 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9218 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    09-13-2011
Well, it is always based on faith in this kind of game. The game decides if you bounce, if you hit, if you pen. The game decides if that one tank bounces 5 shots and destroys 3 enemy tanks. If you win too much games the game can decide you'll loose the next time. We just have to have a faith it is based on RNG, although many games employs some kind of "customer satisfaction" mechanics.

kejmo #65 Posted 16 December 2018 - 08:50 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 30485 battles
  • 775
  • [X3EAM] X3EAM
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

I just noticed that the numbers, while playing the Holy Motherland tanks, are slightly better. 

 

Defense and offense wise.



Jigabachi #66 Posted 16 December 2018 - 10:01 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 21,021
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View Postmroz123456, on 16 December 2018 - 03:52 AM, said:

Well, it is always based on faith in this kind of game. The game decides if you bounce, if you hit, if you pen. The game decides if that one tank bounces 5 shots and destroys 3 enemy tanks. If you win too much games the game can decide you'll loose the next time. We just have to have a faith it is based on RNG, although many games employs some kind of "customer satisfaction" mechanics.

And that could still be the case. The problem we have here is that we have hundreds of threads and claims of rigging of all imaginable sorts, but even after almost 9 years, we sit here with absolutely ZERO evidence. All we get is some uneducated idiots coming here to puke the same old stupid nonsense. And if you ask them for evidence, they either run away or keep babbling nonsense, calling everyone who dares to challenge them a troll or shill.

 

Besides that, thanks for the thread necro.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #67 Posted 16 December 2018 - 10:50 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34085 battles
  • 4,427
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postmroz123456, on 16 December 2018 - 03:52 AM, said:

We just have to have a faith it is based on RNG, although many games employs some kind of "customer satisfaction" mechanics.

 

If that were actually true then 'mechanics' would work in the players favour to help them win their games so that they didn't get those unsatisfactory loss streaks. The fact they get those loss streaks is exactly the proof that no such mechanic exists.



slitth #68 Posted 16 December 2018 - 11:06 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13845 battles
  • 1,193
  • [AL-EU] AL-EU
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

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.

 

The is one problem with this theory.

It is redundant.

 

If WG want players to shot more they would just increase the HP of every tank under the pretense that it to combat games that end to fast and to give players time to fight back



lime9810 #69 Posted 19 August 2019 - 09:45 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 21726 battles
  • 17
  • [TNAC] TNAC
  • Member since:
    05-25-2012
Just bounced off the side of a scout with 20mm armor,i have 300 pen....ofc it was a loss....

Edited by lime9810, 19 August 2019 - 09:45 AM.


Slyspy #70 Posted 19 August 2019 - 10:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14699 battles
  • 17,437
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postlime9810, on 19 August 2019 - 09:45 AM, said:

Just bounced off the side of a scout with 20mm armor,i have 300 pen....ofc it was a loss....

 

Totally worth the necro, thanks for letting us know! 



RamRaid90 #71 Posted 19 August 2019 - 03:02 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25772 battles
  • 7,054
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Postlime9810, on 19 August 2019 - 08:45 AM, said:

Just bounced off the side of a scout with 20mm armor,i have 300 pen....ofc it was a loss....

 

Nice Necro.

 

Also, you probably just missed and hit the tracks. :facepalm:



Dorander #72 Posted 19 August 2019 - 04:23 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 6,037
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostRamRaid90, on 19 August 2019 - 02:02 PM, said:

 

Nice Necro.

 

Also, you probably just missed and hit the tracks. :facepalm:

 

Or hit at an angle greater than 70 degrees with an AP shell and a gun calibre that doesn't overmatch whatever location he hit.

 

People really ought to look at tank models and think about impact angles rather than go "It says it has 20mm side armour on the screen!"



WhoCares01 #73 Posted 19 August 2019 - 04:52 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21460 battles
  • 742
  • Member since:
    04-21-2015

Confirmed. Recently in my Nashorn (240 alpha) got charged by the last enemy, a T-34 (450HP).

1st shot: 246 damage (+2.5% damage roll)

2nd shot: 203 damage (-15.4% damage roll)

Result: T-34 at 1 HP, me dead, and still no Kolobanov's medal for me :(

What did I expect, with a German tank shooting a Russian tank - how dare I...


Edited by WhoCares01, 19 August 2019 - 04:54 PM.


AvengerOrion #74 Posted 19 August 2019 - 05:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27635 battles
  • 1,333
  • Member since:
    12-21-2013

 

View PostDorander, on 19 August 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

 

Or hit at an angle greater than 70 degrees with an AP shell and a gun calibre that doesn't overmatch whatever location he hit.

 

People really ought to look at tank models and think about impact angles rather than go "It says it has 20mm side armour on the screen!"

 

Problem is there isn't a shell that has 300 pen but does not have a high enough caliber not to overmatch 20 mm.

So either his 300 pen is incorrect or his 20 mm armour.

 

Yup, he played either a T28 Prot or T30 with the 120mm gun, so 20mm armour my hairy butt.

Got to love it when people pull numbers out of thin air in an attempt to prove their point.


Edited by AvengerOrion, 19 August 2019 - 05:32 PM.


AngryCombatWombat #75 Posted 19 August 2019 - 05:57 PM

    Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 4286 battles
  • 264
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011
Cease this necromancy at once! No black arts on forum! Topic closed. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users