Lagochillus, on 05 February 2019 - 03:49 PM, said:
Im aware of that. But how can someone explain it, that our games started going into total downhill after platooning up? We both had nice games and thats why we choose to platoon up, to do those missions and have good time. But no. I would rather have needles under my toe nails and kick a stone wall than have that experience again. It was really irritating, completly useless team mates that gets mowed down in 2 minutes. Usually leaving me and my platoon mate to be last alive, because apparently only we knew how to relocate if enemy is pushing with too big force.
I suspect it has nothing to do with the fact that you platooned, you witnessed a very common effect called "regression to the mean", tried to find a solution afterwards and assumed it must be because of that one thing you changed.
You describe that before you platooned you had noticably nice games, you did a lot of damage/assist and you saw maybe one or even no artillery. Now does that sound like World of Tanks on average to you?
If we look at your profile we see that your average damage per game is a little over 1100 and your assist a little under 400. This means that even if you combined these values, even the bottom value of the 3k-5k range is twice your average performance. We also know that artillery has a prevalence of about 10% on average, so we can expect to see 1.5 artillery per match, in other words 1 or 2 artillery. Not 0 or 1. This percentage by the way is a little higher in the top tiers, a little lower in tier 6-8.
So before your losing streak, you were on a winning streak. That wasn't the normal situation, it wasn't even close to an average situation. So obviously at some point this streak is going to end and you're going to have worse games. There are also going to be games fully on the other side of the spectrum, else your average values would be different. So nothing special happened, your luck simply ran out, and this would've happened whether or not you and your buddy had platooned. It would've been exceedingly improbable that you had kept getting good teams and few artillery games.
The question of whether or not this had anything to do with platooning is as valid as asking whether or not your earlier better results have to do with playing solo, that the game has a mechanic which benefits solo players. Given the amount of solo games we've all played, this seems silly, we'd immediately point out that we get plenty bad teams and battles with 2 or even 3 artillery when playing solo, this is a common occurrence. When we play solo, we fully expect this to happen. So we should also expect that this'd happen when platooning.
HassenderZerhacker, on 06 February 2019 - 09:41 AM, said:
the first reason is that WG has a patent about game rigging for customer retention. it's not a proof that they are using it right now, but its existence demonstrates that it's possible and that WG at some point has been thinking about it.
second reason is because I am a F2P player and I get statistically teams which are weaker than the enemy. the average is around 48-49% measured by WN8. this is especially visible at tier 10.
These dead horses again? Wargaming has no patent that describes any of the effects written in this thread, or any other thread about MM rigging for that matter. You don't understand what's in the patent, which describes battle levels, a term completely unrelated to team composition, winrates or PR.
That second statement is great, you can prove that easily! Just run your replays through Baldrickk's analyser program and everyone will be able to witness objective evidence. Even better, you must have done this already since you've seen it, so please share. We'll ignore for the time being the counter-evidence: that people who pay don't have statistically better outcomes which is what you'd expect if they consistently got better teams, or that someone did a full free to play experiment grinding a line to tier X to see if paying was required to be a unicum (it wasn't).
0
