Jump to content


We blame WG, but is it us?

bots teams matchmaking winning losing noobs newbies win rate wn8

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

SilentGaze #21 Posted 26 May 2018 - 07:08 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 960 battles
  • 370
  • Member since:
    03-22-2017

WoT is not only random games. Last week only 47% of all games played were random games.  I can't imagine an system whic would force an one time team of 15 strangers to cooperate like trained soldiers.

 

For those who like to play organised team games have other game modes awailable.

 

http://wot-news.com/...ver/eu/norm/en​

 



Tramp_In_Armour #22 Posted 26 May 2018 - 07:10 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6560 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    05-25-2017

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 26 May 2018 - 02:52 PM, said:

 

 

There is a huge focus on 'win-rate'. What if more weight was given to damage caused, assisted damage, vehicles spotted, number of team-mate survived?

 

 

I think, actually, that a focus on winrate is more liable to produce the teamwork that you seek. Because you get a win only if your team does well. Damage caused and assisted is covered by marks of excellence, but a win is not required to get them. It is possible (and I see many heavies and mediums doing this, not just TDs) to camp at the back, contributing little to your team, then, when your team collapses, farm a ton of damage from the advancing enemy before your inevitable destruction. I think some players take this approach to guarantee a shot at the enemy, rather than advance forward early in the game and getting taken out by an unseen tank. But camping lets down the team and doesn't contribute much towards a win. Right now, I'm still trying to work out how to positively influence a game as a TD or support tank. I get good (for me) win8 for some tanks, but terrible winrates. I prefer it the other way round, but clearly there are rewards for simply camping.

 

Currently, no matter how well you do, you get less XP if your team wins (well, part from a courageous resistance bonus if you perform above and beyond), so there is an incentive if your team wins, but clearly not enough. Giving more weight to base capture may help (or have more bases to capture like in Frontline), but I don't know.

 

The other thing is that win8, which values damage over winrate, is not a WOT generated stat. It's a third party stat, generated by player desire. So this could be taken as evidence that players prefer damage and solo heroics over team efforts.

 

View PostSilentGaze, on 26 May 2018 - 07:08 PM, said:

WoT is not only random games. Last week only 47% of all games played were random games.  I can't imagine an system whic would force an one time team of 15 strangers to cooperate like trained soldiers.

 

For those who like to play organised team games have other game modes awailable.

 

http://wot-news.com/...ver/eu/norm/en​

 

 

Yes, how about we talk about the other game modes and how they change the gameplay (if at all)? This surely is the reason for the existence of clans - for team competitive play.
 

Pattonizer #23 Posted 26 May 2018 - 09:19 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8763 battles
  • 306
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011
This is the question which bothered me since the beggining of the game. As I am myself was a 50% below player ( I don't know what's the average is, 48-49%?), I constantly made theories about winning. At first, because my pride wanted to win, but later on I was just curious at the dynamics of it. I started to play less battles, and philosophize more, but slowly managed to approach 53%. My final goal is 55%, It seems somewhat that's the upper limit of my skills.
I'v studied unicum players by replays and streams, and they're gaining +5-10% with constant playing (taking WoT as serious lifestyle), using constant premium account for as many premium ammo and consumables as possible, and platooning. To my approximate calculation's you need that to go above 55% for the long run.

Now, I don't want a too TL;DR, so here's the situation, about the simplified aspects of your winning chances, using Richard Thaler's behavioral economics thumb rules:
  1. There are people who are smarter than other people.
  2. Only constantly thinking about something instantly makes you better in it than 85% of other people.
  3. It is still more profitable to utilize other people's mistake, than teaching them correcting those mistakes (This is a sad one, but there's great wisdom to it).
     

What does it mean in short?

You can't rely on teammates. You take them as the worst, and take your enemies as the best. Try to make better everything about your surroundings. If you do the best, you're chances are getting much much higher.
The formation of medium wolfpacks, proper teamworks are too sporadic. Make enough just enough advancement on the map to encourage teammates to help you, but not too much. On the other hand, you need to know every situation on the map and take the risk, when it's your turn. What's my most interesting discovery is, that most of the lost games could be won, if at most two players do things a bit better. There's a huge force behind teamwork even between two players.

You can't do more than that, even pro-clan battles are tend to end in one minutes from time to time. This is just the game.



_GoGen_ #24 Posted 27 May 2018 - 08:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8051 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    05-15-2013

Nineteen games are a total frustration.... but then it happens... that ONE BATTLE... when you and a total stranger "feel" each other and obliterate whole enemy's flank all alone, achieving awesome victory with your team.

After battle, you receive a message, "Awesome teamplay dude!" and you replay "You too, see you on the batlefield, good luck!"

 

That's worth playing for :)


Edited by _GoGen_, 27 May 2018 - 08:51 PM.


_6i6_ #25 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:21 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13112 battles
  • 290
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View Post_GoGen_, on 27 May 2018 - 09:51 PM, said:

Nineteen games are a total frustration.... but then it happens... that ONE BATTLE... when you and a total stranger "feel" each other and obliterate whole enemy's flank all alone, achieving awesome victory with your team.

After battle, you receive a message, "Awesome teamplay dude!" and you replay "You too, see you on the batlefield, good luck!"

 

That's worth playing for :)

 

well said :)

Graeme0 #26 Posted 06 June 2018 - 01:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 25820 battles
  • 508
  • [M-O-M] M-O-M
  • Member since:
    02-15-2015

The only way to get better teamwork is to stop rewarding selfishness and reward team play

 

 



_6i6_ #27 Posted 06 June 2018 - 01:57 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13112 battles
  • 290
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostGraeme0, on 06 June 2018 - 02:39 PM, said:

The only way to get better teamwork is to stop rewarding selfishness and reward team play

 

 

 

love your avatar photo graeme :PP

and totally agree on the team-play reward 



SiliconSidewinder #28 Posted 06 June 2018 - 02:25 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 28065 battles
  • 5,518
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

View PostGraeme0, on 06 June 2018 - 01:39 PM, said:

The only way to get better teamwork is to stop rewarding selfishness and reward team play

 

 

 

the problem is the good old "what is measurable"

damage and kills are easy to, while "teamplay" is usually not.

 



TANKOPPRESSION #29 Posted 06 June 2018 - 04:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44471 battles
  • 894
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

We have all read the multitude of rants around 'idiot teams', 'unfair match-making', 'bots', 'noobs ruining games' blah, blah, blah, blah, but my question is this.

 

Isn't the real problem the fact that, what is obviously a team game, simply isn't played by teams?

 

If everyone on the green team communicated with each other, organised tactics such as perimeter defenses, split into groups of LT, MT & HT to attack/defend corridors/choke points, fell back/pushed forward in a co-ordinated manner, and simply put, played as a team, wouldn't our win rate be significantly better?

 

Let's take the hypothesis that the entire red team consists of 'bots', and that WG have deliberately stacked the odds against us. Looking at the performance of 'bots' in the old Proving Ground, are we really not better players than them?

I know. of course, that an initial response is likely to be, "well they don't fill it with 'bots', the MM fills it with players of a higher tier and better WR than us", but can we really blame our 15-4 defeat on that?

 

I think the real blame lay with ourselves. Ultimately we drive off, focused on our own performance. Sure, we are aware of our team, but do we react appropriately? How many times have you received a message of 'defend the base' from someone parked a million miles away, who isn't following their own advice? How many times have you seen a platoon of 3 or 4 players die within the first 5 minutes without a single kill between them?

 

I'm wary of this turning into a boring rant, exactly the type of post I get sick of, but I am really beginning to realise that the reason we get slaughtered so regularly, is the fact that we don't play as one.

Maybe it's time we stopped blaming everyone else, and started examining our own failings.

 

Its meant to be random so will only get to a certain level of wins and losses because of randomness , so you would not see the player stats that we do see .

so that leads us to wg useing bots in your side very weak bots at that . You have a point there but your up against previous points so its like saying wargaming.net are more erroneous

than the player .



SGT_Sprocket22 #30 Posted 06 June 2018 - 04:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27886 battles
  • 483
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

We have all read the multitude of rants around 'idiot teams', 'unfair match-making', 'bots', 'noobs ruining games' blah, blah, blah, blah, but my question is this.

 

Isn't the real problem the fact that, what is obviously a team game, simply isn't played by teams?

 

If everyone on the green team communicated with each other, organised tactics such as perimeter defenses, split into groups of LT, MT & HT to attack/defend corridors/choke points, fell back/pushed forward in a co-ordinated manner, and simply put, played as a team, wouldn't our win rate be significantly better?

 

Let's take the hypothesis that the entire red team consists of 'bots', and that WG have deliberately stacked the odds against us. Looking at the performance of 'bots' in the old Proving Ground, are we really not better players than them?

I know. of course, that an initial response is likely to be, "well they don't fill it with 'bots', the MM fills it with players of a higher tier and better WR than us", but can we really blame our 15-4 defeat on that?

 

I think the real blame lay with ourselves. Ultimately we drive off, focused on our own performance. Sure, we are aware of our team, but do we react appropriately? How many times have you received a message of 'defend the base' from someone parked a million miles away, who isn't following their own advice? How many times have you seen a platoon of 3 or 4 players die within the first 5 minutes without a single kill between them?

 

I'm wary of this turning into a boring rant, exactly the type of post I get sick of, but I am really beginning to realise that the reason we get slaughtered so regularly, is the fact that we don't play as one.

Maybe it's time we stopped blaming everyone else, and started examining our own failings.

 

​Then again, there are clans for proper team play. Random games feel more like a team effort, much like the Allies of WW2. The various nations fought for the same goals and were all on the same side but didn't necessarily fight in coordination with each other. 

TANKOPPRESSION #31 Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44471 battles
  • 894
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

View PostSGT_Sprocket22, on 06 June 2018 - 03:40 PM, said:

 

​Then again, there are clans for proper team play.

 

Is BULL a proper clan .

Sirebellus #32 Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20740 battles
  • 740
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostSilentGaze, on 26 May 2018 - 07:08 PM, said:

WoT is not only random games. Last week only 47% of all games played were random games.

 

 

Curious, because from my reading of that site for w/e 28/5 the Random games were 96% of all games played and I guess that will have been the same for most weeks as the number of players in clans is very low and for non clan players random is the norm

 



Joggaman #33 Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:15 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 24764 battles
  • 6,662
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

@Tramp:

All this leaves me with one question...

Can I still masturbate?


Edited by Joggaman, 06 June 2018 - 08:17 PM.


5_InchFl0ppy #34 Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40720 battles
  • 1,645
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

View PostTANKOPPRESSION, on 06 June 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

 

Is BULL a proper clan .

 

It was back in the 90's when Shnuks founded it.

Tramp_In_Armour #35 Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6560 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    05-25-2017

View PostJoggaman, on 06 June 2018 - 08:15 PM, said:

@Tramp:

All this leaves me with one question...

Can I still masturbate?

 

Only if one plays arty. The devil makes work for (an) idle hand.

Dead_in_30_seconds #36 Posted 06 June 2018 - 08:43 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3835 battles
  • 639
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View PostJoggaman, on 06 June 2018 - 07:15 PM, said:

@Tramp:

All this leaves me with one question...

Can I still masturbate?

 

If you're interested in seamen, can I recommend World of Warships.

cellaman7 #37 Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:12 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34511 battles
  • 4,553
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

As it has been said before. Unless you are in a toon of 3 it is you against 29 players.

You don't play for yourself. You play where you think you are most useful. You don't have time to keep communicating with the team unless you are sat at the back watching the battle unfold



TANKOPPRESSION #38 Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44471 battles
  • 894
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 25 May 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

We have all read the multitude of rants around 'idiot teams', 'unfair match-making', 'bots', 'noobs ruining games' blah, blah, blah, blah, but my question is this.

 

Isn't the real problem the fact that, what is obviously a team game, simply isn't played by teams?

 

If everyone on the green team communicated with each other, organised tactics such as perimeter defenses, split into groups of LT, MT & HT to attack/defend corridors/choke points, fell back/pushed forward in a co-ordinated manner, and simply put, played as a team, wouldn't our win rate be significantly better?

 

Let's take the hypothesis that the entire red team consists of 'bots', and that WG have deliberately stacked the odds against us. Looking at the performance of 'bots' in the old Proving Ground, are we really not better players than them?

I know. of course, that an initial response is likely to be, "well they don't fill it with 'bots', the MM fills it with players of a higher tier and better WR than us", but can we really blame our 15-4 defeat on that?

 

I think the real blame lay with ourselves. Ultimately we drive off, focused on our own performance. Sure, we are aware of our team, but do we react appropriately? How many times have you received a message of 'defend the base' from someone parked a million miles away, who isn't following their own advice? How many times have you seen a platoon of 3 or 4 players die within the first 5 minutes without a single kill between them?

 

I'm wary of this turning into a boring rant, exactly the type of post I get sick of, but I am really beginning to realise that the reason we get slaughtered so regularly, is the fact that we don't play as one.

Maybe it's time we stopped blaming everyone else, and started examining our own failings.

 

It isnt us it is WG .

Dead_in_30_seconds #39 Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3835 battles
  • 639
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-07-2017

View PostTANKOPPRESSION, on 06 June 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

 

Its meant to be random so will only get to a certain level of wins and losses because of randomness , so you would not see the player stats that we do see .

so that leads us to wg useing bots in your side very weak bots at that . You have a point there but your up against previous points so its like saying wargaming.net are more erroneous

than the player .

 

Interesting.

 

During yet another 15-4 drubbing, how many bots do you reckon our team might contain, on average? 1? 2? 7?

 

Not discounting the hypothesis, just curious.



TANKOPPRESSION #40 Posted 06 June 2018 - 09:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44471 battles
  • 894
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    04-25-2012

View PostDead_in_30_seconds, on 06 June 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

Interesting.

 

During yet another 15-4 drubbing, how many bots do you reckon our team might contain, on average? 1? 2? 7?

 

Not discounting the hypothesis, just curious.

 

3 weak bots thats all that would be needed .





Also tagged with bots, teams, matchmaking, winning, losing, noobs, newbies, win rate, wn8

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users