Jump to content


WG finally admit they are lying


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

F2PEXP #1 Posted 27 July 2018 - 03:20 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2910 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

edited


Edited by 11poseidon11, 27 July 2018 - 12:20 PM.
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to not being constructive and advertising


Homer_J #2 Posted 27 July 2018 - 03:31 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

If you are going to click bait advertise your channel at least use your main account to post.

 

WG never said there was any algorithm which prevents you always being bottom, they said it tries.  There is a subtle difference.



Homer_J #3 Posted 27 July 2018 - 03:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

edited

 

 

Yes, but it was never claimed to ensure anything.

 

It only claimed to try.

 

Just like I try to be a millionaire.


Edited by 11poseidon11, 27 July 2018 - 12:59 PM.


F2PEXP #4 Posted 27 July 2018 - 03:50 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2910 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostHomer_J, on 27 July 2018 - 03:44 AM, said:

Yes, but it was never claimed to ensure anything.

 

It only claimed to try.

 

Just like I try to be a millionaire.

 

so basically its misrepresentation, same thing, stop trying to split hairs

Homer_J #5 Posted 27 July 2018 - 03:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 03:50 AM, said:

 

so basically its misrepresentation, same thing, stop trying to split hairs

 

How is stating that it tries to do something that it tries to so a misrepresentation unless you mean there's a misrepresentation in that video, which I imagine there is.

 

If you read WG's article rather than relying on some 3rd hand sensationalised information then you will see they say the algorithm which tries to ensure you are not always bottom often fails.  That is a lot different to admitting it does not exist.  In fact it is entirely the opposite.  They say it does exist just does not do what they would like it to do as often as they would like.

 

Their words: "Unfortunately, simply tweaking the current algorithm won’t fix it."

 

And six months to wait for the matchmaker rework, that's not long since we waited six years for it last time.


Edited by Homer_J, 27 July 2018 - 03:58 AM.


F2PEXP #6 Posted 27 July 2018 - 04:06 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2910 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostHomer_J, on 27 July 2018 - 03:57 AM, said:

 

How is stating that it tries to do something that it tries to so a misrepresentation unless you mean there's a misrepresentation in that video, which I imagine there is.

 

If you read WG's article rather than relying on some 3rd hand sensationalised information then you will see they say the algorithm which tries to ensure you are not always bottom often fails.  That is a lot different to admitting it does not exist.  In fact it is entirely the opposite.  They say it does exist just does not do what they would like it to do as often as they would like.

 

Their words: "Unfortunately, simply tweaking the current algorithm won’t fix it."

 

And six months to wait for the matchmaker rework, that's not long since we waited six years for it last time.

 

and how does your comment explain WG saying over and over MM working as intended, I have read the MM thread often and it is stated over and over the MM ensures you do not get bottom tiers consistently when in fact you do.  I will try to find the relevant videos as well when I have time

 



Balc0ra #7 Posted 27 July 2018 - 04:16 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64400 battles
  • 15,436
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 03:38 AM, said:

 

and as for the algorithm, that is stated almost every claim players make about bottom tier all the time

 

If MM allows it. It was never said to be a sure thing that will work every time. It was simply something that was intended to activate after a set number of battles as top or middle tiers in a row to prevent you from getting more of the same. It never claimed to make you top tier more often as many still think it was supposed to do. But instead try.. keyword here is try, to get you less top tier games. If the MM allows it. As that is not gonna work at 3AM when most are playing tier 9 or 10 and you are still on your tier 8. 

 

But as they also said in the news post about it now. They did alter it a few patches back to improve it, but it only made it worse, thus the 80% claim. And the fix just made equal tier games more of a thing too. Something I did notice on my IS-6 after that patch. As that's when he started to see more or less 80% equal tier games. And thus why I never play it anymore. 


Edited by Balc0ra, 27 July 2018 - 04:17 AM.


F2PEXP #8 Posted 27 July 2018 - 04:26 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2910 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostBalc0ra, on 27 July 2018 - 04:16 AM, said:

 

If MM allows it. It was never said to be a sure thing that will work every time. It was simply something that was intended to activate after a set number of battles as top or middle tiers in a row to prevent you from getting more of the same. It never claimed to make you top tier more often as many still think it was supposed to do. But instead try.. keyword here is try, to get you less top tier games. If the MM allows it. As that is not gonna work at 3AM when most are playing tier 9 or 10 and you are still on your tier 8. 

 

But as they also said in the news post about it now. They did alter it a few patches back to improve it, but it only made it worse, thus the 80% claim. And the fix just made equal tier games more of a thing too. Something I did notice on my IS-6 after that patch. As that's when he started to see more or less 80% equal tier games. And thus why I never play it anymore. 

 

word is not try, cannot find that word anywhere

 

PRIORITISE, different word, different meaning, 

 

edit found another video that does say try, so I concede that point

edit again, but if they still never put that feature into algorithm it'sstill a lie


Edited by F2PEXP, 27 July 2018 - 04:41 AM.


shane73tank #9 Posted 27 July 2018 - 04:37 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27396 battles
  • 1,988
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    03-01-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 27 July 2018 - 02:44 AM, said:

Yes, but it was never claimed to ensure anything.

 

It only claimed to try.

 

Just like I try to be a millionaire.

If I use the OP’s logic you are either a lying b’start or are in fact a millionaire - pls send on Fort Knox as proof ( shishx and Fort Knox mentioned in same thread , what happens next ?)



Homer_J #10 Posted 27 July 2018 - 04:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 04:26 AM, said:

 

 

PRIORITISE, different word, different meaning, 

 

Look up the meaning then because it seems you think it means something it doesn't.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #11 Posted 27 July 2018 - 05:04 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27537 battles
  • 1,970
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
They've never lied about how it works, they were quite clear in what it was designed to achieve. However the MM is dependent on what the player base decides to play tank wise as it can only work with whatever tanks are in the tank pool.

All that they've said today is that what they designed and what they intended to achieve isn't what actually happened when it was put onto the live server.

So the only 'news' here is that you can do all the models you like but that doesn't mean you'll get the result you want on a live server and consequently they'll be looking at tweaking it to try and get nearer what they want.

F2PEXP #12 Posted 27 July 2018 - 05:15 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2910 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostHomer_J, on 27 July 2018 - 04:57 AM, said:

Look up the meaning then because it seems you think it means something it doesn't.

 

prioritise, get that done first, eg prioritise washing the dishes over the car.  the prioritised item has most importance over the other and will get most effort.

try, get that done sometime, eg  try to wash the dishes before the car.  the item no real importance over the other and may get done.  other examples are you might 'try' the window to see if its open, there is no emphasis on actually doing

 

simples


Edited by F2PEXP, 27 July 2018 - 05:17 AM.


Homer_J #13 Posted 27 July 2018 - 05:18 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 05:15 AM, said:

 

the prioritised item has most importance over the other and will get most effort

 

It doesn't mean it will get done.  Either first or at all.  It just means you try to put one first.



tankqull #14 Posted 27 July 2018 - 05:27 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20536 battles
  • 1,475
  • [-FD-] -FD-
  • Member since:
    08-31-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 27 July 2018 - 02:31 AM, said:

If you are going to click bait advertise your channel at least use your main account to post.

 

WG never said there was any algorithm which prevents you always being bottom, they said it tries.  There is a subtle difference.

 

Duh?

to have a programm try to avoid sth. it requires an algorithem to do so. by saying they have no algorith for it they directly say the current MM never tried to avoid it as it was nothing of its goals.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #15 Posted 27 July 2018 - 06:00 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27537 battles
  • 1,970
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 05:36 AM, said:

 

edited

 

Even if the attempt was given top priority that is still no guarantee as the MM can still only work with what its got. You're confusing 'prioritise' with 'guarantee'.


Edited by 11poseidon11, 27 July 2018 - 01:19 PM.


Homer_J #16 Posted 27 July 2018 - 06:07 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Posttankqull, on 27 July 2018 - 05:27 AM, said:

 

 by saying they have no algorith for it they directly say the current MM never tried to avoid it as it was nothing of its goals.

 

But they don't say they have no algorithm for it. 

 

Here it is again.

Quote

Unfortunately, simply tweaking the current algorithm won’t fix it.

 

See, current algorithm.

 

So far from saying they have no algorithm they say they actually positively do have an algorithm which they can't fix by simply tweaking.



NUKLEAR_SLUG #17 Posted 27 July 2018 - 06:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27537 battles
  • 1,970
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015
It's almost like reading is hard..

Homer_J #18 Posted 27 July 2018 - 06:40 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 05:15 AM, said:

 

prioritise, get that done first, eg prioritise washing the dishes over the car.  the prioritised item has most importance over the other and will get most effort.

 

 

But it's 3 in the afternoon, the car is doing nothing and dinner is some hours away, I have nothing else to do for an hour.  The dishes still have my first priority but the car will get done first.  I still prioritised the dishes.

 

Or the ship is sinking, I prioritise women and children getting on the lifeboats but only men arrive so I put the men on the lifeboats.  If women or children arrive then they will still get priority but I am not going to stop loading lifeboats just because I only have men in the queue.



Homer_J #19 Posted 27 July 2018 - 06:44 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostF2PEXP, on 27 July 2018 - 06:32 AM, said:

edited

Were there any WG Devs there or was he getting this from EU staff?  Because even if someone did say that then there's no guarantee it was right.

 

I was prioritising watching tanks and keeping myself hydrated at Tankfest so I don't know what was said or who was saying it.


Edited by 11poseidon11, 27 July 2018 - 01:22 PM.


F2PEXP #20 Posted 27 July 2018 - 07:00 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2910 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostHomer_J, on 27 July 2018 - 06:44 AM, said:

Were there any WG Devs there or was he getting this from EU staff?  Because even if someone did say that then there's no guarantee it was right.

 

I was prioritising watching tanks and keeping myself hydrated at Tankfest so I don't know what was said or who was saying it.

 

I am not sure who from WG at tankfest as I was not there, but why would they admit they never implemented the system to balance your tier distribution if that's not the case. that makes no sense  and to use occam's razor their disclosure they did not do so is the far more reasonable explanation than they did, its sucks and now we are admitting that we did not do it (but actually we did)

 

6 months to put something into MM they said would be in from day 1, gg

 

you can twist this as much as you like, they have admitted their mistakes and have told us they have a plan to sort it out.  this admission is good, positive and constructive and hopefully a sign of things to come and far better than their lie about everything mode


Edited by F2PEXP, 27 July 2018 - 07:02 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users