Jump to content


RNG is not RNG

RNG

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

Baldrickk #41 Posted 10 October 2019 - 12:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,875
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostStevies_Team, on 10 October 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:

The fact that WoT don't do proper open competitions is enough proof of jiggery pokery

Err... what?

Edit: emphasis not mine


Edited by Baldrickk, 10 October 2019 - 12:36 PM.


zsplintersz #42 Posted 10 October 2019 - 12:41 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 2088 battles
  • 124
  • Member since:
    09-03-2016

View Postmalachi6, on 10 October 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:

 

You missed my question.  Given you do not even consider the existence of positive RNG, is your position reasonable?

Certainly. I think there is a mechanism to give you positive matchmaking, balancing and Russian RNG.

It kicks in after a clusterf... , or when you haven't played a long time, or you have payed a lot for prem.  You only can not predict it because this Russian factor is a variable and gets multiplied with RNG.

 

If i am right how is this provable? What are the criteria for an investigation to proof significantly that there is a game mechanism that helps you or f you? I estimate that you would have to play a huge amount of games and then statistically analyse them. 

 

Not worth my time, but if someone wants to do that i will support him. :)

 

This is an escalating game. Consider that an experienced player have tank crew with 5 skills or more and the right equipment on the tank. Suddenly a noob enemy appears.  He doesn't have the basic skills at 100%, wrong or no equipment on his tank. If there was no Russian RNG the noob would not see the experienced player coming while he gets blown away every time. how long do you think that the noob would keep playing this game? He needs once in a few shots some luck and some help from the Russian RNG or he may quit the game.

 

My experience is there is also a system that kicks in when your winrate are getting at 60%. Your are corrected downwards with bad balancing, bad matchmaking and bad Russian RNG. The same way that mechanism helps you when your winrate gets to low.

Of course you may not agree with me, its just my point of view and some experienced players who know how to look at patterns ;)

 

 

There are several posters at this forum who blindly attacks every poster with criticism  of this game.  Have WG asked for volunteers to defend the game in the forum in the same way as WG is asking for moderators now? Have missed that :trollface:

 

I think that having criticism of the game is useful for the game maker (if they would read it or get feedback of it). Just blindly defending the game like a donkey helps no one. :sceptic: 

11:47 Added after 6 minute

View PostArgedeava, on 10 October 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:


Trolls hate light, fresh air and truth. They prefer their own smell and hate anything that disturbs their anaerobic developement. The warning are there to apeace them.

Euhhhh. my question is what happens when you get 3 warning points... but you do like trolls? :trollface:;)

11:52 Added after 10 minute

View PostArgedeava, on 10 October 2019 - 10:15 AM, said:


I feel a bit of shame and disgust when i play any tank and i have a Tiger 1 or a Tiger 2 in gunsight.

Yeah it is murder.  Afterwards it feels like being a war-criminal. I guess tank balancing is done by some Russian volunteer. :facepalm:


Edited by zsplintersz, 10 October 2019 - 12:45 PM.


Dorander #43 Posted 10 October 2019 - 01:06 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 6,042
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postzsplintersz, on 10 October 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

I think that having criticism of the game is useful for the game maker (if they would read it or get feedback of it). Just blindly defending the game like a donkey helps no one. :sceptic: 

 

Having criticism of the game is useful sure, but if it has nothing to do with reality, it isn't actually criticism. Take the following examples, both which describe the same experience. One is useful and valid, the other is utterly pointless:

 

1) "Hey Wargaming, due to your accuracy design my shots go all over the place sometimes and I feel like I can't significantly impact my battles, I really don't like that in a game."

 

2) "Hey Wargaming, stop rigging my RNG you <curseword curseword> cheaters! You only give good RNG to people who pay or who are Russian!"

 

The first statement is feedback about your experience as a customer and what might incline you to enjoy and possibly pay for their product. Useful information for a company. The second is so devoid of any reality and typically accompanied by <curseword curseword> that nobody's going to be inclined to take you seriously. You've prevented Wargaming with a problem they can't solve, because it doesn't matter what they say, you've already created the conspiracy that they're a part of.

 

Now guess which type of comments we typically see here, accompanied by no evidence at all, just claims that people "see patterns", which they categorically can't, and is accompanied by anecdotal evidence which is cherrypicked and completely ignores the counterexamples of the "patterns"?



vasilinhorulezz #44 Posted 10 October 2019 - 01:43 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28493 battles
  • 2,059
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
Yea, WG can't run servers that will not crash every half an hour, but guess what, they run an algorithm in them, that would totally destroy them to the point they wouldn't be up even for a minute, and all that, only to screw some "selected" players up (mostly 47% win rate ones, because apparently they are the ones that constantly claim that RNG is against them).

BravelyRanAway #45 Posted 10 October 2019 - 01:58 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 24462 battles
  • 12,195
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View Postzsplintersz, on 10 October 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Certainly. I think there is a mechanism to give you positive matchmaking, balancing and Russian RNG.

It kicks in after a clusterf... , or when you haven't played a long time, or you have payed a lot for prem.  You only can not predict it because this Russian factor is a variable and gets multiplied with RNG.

So, your WR is nothing more than a lucky gift from WG and nothing to do with ability...............lucky you!:trollface:



facmanpob #46 Posted 10 October 2019 - 02:17 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4147 battles
  • 272
  • [WW3] WW3
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostKalonianhydra, on 09 October 2019 - 06:13 PM, said:

RNG in this game isn't RNG.

How many times have you missed a target even if you are fully aimed?
And that's even when you have about 80% of the target covered. Or when you have around 70-80% covered, but the shot still goes in a spot where i doesn't hit.

Did you know that the reticle shows an area 2 standard deviations from your aim point? In other words, every shot has roughly a 4% chance of not going inside the aiming circle(although those shots do get a reroll)!

 

So if you don't fully aim in, what do you expect?



barison1 #47 Posted 10 October 2019 - 02:30 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 44385 battles
  • 2,448
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View PostArgedeava, on 10 October 2019 - 12:32 PM, said:


Trolls hate light, fresh air and truth. They prefer their own smell and hate anything that disturbs their anaerobic developement. The warning are there to apeace them.


talking about yourself again?

 

the only thing you been doing is insulting/accusing every single person here that they are trolls/defending wg, while only spreading tinfoil yourself instead of looking at truth/actual things that happen. so perhaps get serious for once and look at truth and not feel based statements



NUKLEAR_SLUG #48 Posted 10 October 2019 - 03:28 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34443 battles
  • 4,836
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postzsplintersz, on 10 October 2019 - 12:41 PM, said:

My experience is there is also a system that kicks in when your winrate are getting at 60%. Your are corrected downwards with bad balancing, bad matchmaking and bad Russian RNG. The same way that mechanism helps you when your winrate gets to low.

Of course you may not agree with me, its just my point of view and some experienced players who know how to look at patterns ;)

 

Tripe. Your experience is that you just plain aren't good enough to maintain a 60% WR which is why you don't have one. If there was such a mechanism in place to rig WR it would be giving all those 45% players easy wins so they didn't have a 45%WR any more. The fact that they still do proves that it doesn't. 



Spurtung #49 Posted 10 October 2019 - 06:24 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 74934 battles
  • 6,833
  • [WG_PT] WG_PT
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View Postzsplintersz, on 10 October 2019 - 11:02 AM, said:

what happens with 3 warning points?

 

You'll find it hard to share your opinions for a year.



Maschinenkanone #50 Posted 10 October 2019 - 07:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 45692 battles
  • 444
  • [MBEV] MBEV
  • Member since:
    05-17-2012

Please read and learn:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 



Gkirmathal #51 Posted 10 October 2019 - 08:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8602 battles
  • 1,731
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostDorander, on 10 October 2019 - 10:38 AM, said:

 

Shot distribution and penrolls aren't provided to the client so can't be analysed in this manner, however players have done experiments and consequentially data analysis mostly on shot distribution. Damagerolls AFAIK can be recorded as that information is provided to the client, perhaps Baldrickk can integrate that into his tool if he hasn't already, either way every time that subject has come up and people started actually tracking all values, people found an average at or near the listed alpha value. You can easily try that yourself, turn on damage logs, divide your total damage by number of penetrating shots.

 

If you want to learn about shot distribution you can google the experiments, I'm getting tired of doing the work for "sceptics". People who think there's a rigging system have the burden of proof but provide nothing every time, people who don't accept that belief provide counter-evidence and it gets ignored because it's not palatable or presented enough. It's just argumentum ad nauseam.

 

That the shot distribution is not provided to the client...no sh!t Sherlock! :teethhappy: I've been active here since early January 2013 you know ghehe.
So no need for your "tone" in the last paragraph man. Just saying. Reserve that for those other special cases here :girl:

 

Just re read this, "data & evidence" being those special cases interpretation of their gut feelings.

View PostGkirmathal, on 10 October 2019 - 08:54 AM, said:

With the absence of such an analyses mod gathering hard data, all current 'data & evidence' is just gut feelings, circumstantial observation at best and thus non conclusive.

 

 

Back to the programming question/conundrum I asked about, for those programmers/coders here that want/can to clarify this.

 

To taking a mouse pointer location as an example.

Theoretically could a 'rendered screen/frame' be theoretically "scanned" to determine a mouse pointer location within the rendered screen/frame, without getting this data from calling mouse input device (see this MS document https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/inputdev/mouse-input).

If this is remotely possible, how CPU intense would this be in this simple case? And could it be used to determine other things that are rendered on screen, for instance some occasions in a (input random titel) game?

 

edit: oops clicked the 'post' button accidentally

 

 


Edited by Gkirmathal, 10 October 2019 - 08:26 PM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #52 Posted 10 October 2019 - 08:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34443 battles
  • 4,836
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostGkirmathal, on 10 October 2019 - 08:08 PM, said:

Back to the programming question/conundrum I asked about, for those programmers/coders here that want/can to clarify this.

 

To taking a mouse pointer location as an example.

Theoretically could a 'rendered screen/frame' be theoretically "scanned" to determine a mouse pointer location within the rendered screen/frame, without getting this data from calling mouse input device (see this MS document https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/inputdev/mouse-input).

If this is remotely possible, how CPU intense would this be in this simple case? And could it be used to determine other things that are rendered on screen, for instance some occasions in a (input random titel) game?

 

You could capture two frames and calculate differences between them to determine where the pointer was located, that's not hard, but that would only really work with highly static frames. It would be very difficult to differentiate a mouse pointer from background noise on substantially different frames.

 

Out of interest, what particular crackpot theory are you looking to find justification for? 



Gkirmathal #53 Posted 10 October 2019 - 09:57 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8602 battles
  • 1,731
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 10 October 2019 - 07:33 PM, said:

 

You could capture two frames and calculate differences between them to determine where the pointer was located, that's not hard, but that would only really work with highly static frames. It would be very difficult to differentiate a mouse pointer from background noise on substantially different frames.

 

Out of interest, what particular crackpot theory are you looking to find justification for? 

 

To find a coder who is in need of a challenge? :P The joke aside.

 

Apologies for the incoming a bit lengthy reply.

A way to debunk the crackpot theorist that claim: "WG has rigs my shots!#!".

But with proper data and not what is determined by testing only "by eye" and drawing a circle on a napkin to log where a shot landed.

We have that fantastic tool by Baldrick that disproofs the "rigged teams" claims. Fantastic tool and info it gives if you ask me.

 

Because the api does not provide data on 'shot distribution', a.k. where a shot landed in relation to the target and aim circle size. Nor on pen roll info. Properly registering/logging this and being able to analyze it...well becomes a bit impossible.

Thus these "rig claims" persist on and on.

 

Now the only way to approach this by  "approximation by eye", like recently DezGames has done in his test. Not a particular efficient way to gather good data that can be analyzed. It's an approximation at best.

 

So I have been pondering this on and off: if we recreated DezGames's his test, but shot at a wall, so the decals would be very visible.

How can this visual information be registered by means of software, auto logged in a usable format, so that it can be used to calculate where on the gaussian bell curve (derived from current shot sigma) a shot fell in relation to the aim circle (not forgetting making fancy graphs).

Given that the aim circle can be determined in the same a similar visual fashion, perhaps with mod that makes it more visible.

 

That is the where my crackpot theoretical question came to be, but using the mouse pointer as simple introductory example ;)

 

Anyhow I'm out for a pint or two...Friday offs ftw!

 



Dorander #54 Posted 11 October 2019 - 12:00 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 6,042
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostGkirmathal, on 10 October 2019 - 07:08 PM, said:

 

That the shot distribution is not provided to the client...no sh!t Sherlock! :teethhappy: I've been active here since early January 2013 you know ghehe.
So no need for your "tone" in the last paragraph man. Just saying. Reserve that for those other special cases here :girl:

 

Just re read this, "data & evidence" being those special cases interpretation of their gut feelings.

 

Apologies for my "tone", even if that was merely perceived, I could've worded that better, or at least, more kindly.

 

The reason I stated that shot distribution is not provided to the client is that you stated you were waiting for a "mod" to be made that tracks this. Mods can't track this as mods are modifications to the client and can't make use of data that isn't sent to the client. I mentioned it because of the language you used, not because I have some preconceived notions about your knowledge; I lack that completely. I can see your registration date but I've seen players with similar old accounts state the most inane things, so your registration date simply doesn't tell me anything. I can only rely on your choice of words to understand your meaning.

 

I saw your quote but there's a problem with it. Logical positivism leads to the problem that no evidence in existence can possibly match its standards because the task of positivistically proving any theory is infinitely large, as we're facing infinitely large time and space. Even if you limit that space to our own world the task is infinitely large and even if you put contextual limits of this very specific situation, information for every game that has been and ever will be played is unattainable.

 

That is why science changed its primary focus to falsification theory: constructive a theory from a hypothesis and positivistic evidence, which is always observational evidence, and hold that theory to be true as long as it resists falsification. Note that observational evidence is not the same as anecdotal evidence, which is what I think you refer to when you mention "circumstantial observation". Every observation is circumstantial. Positivistic evidence is nothing but a set of observations which match the expected theory, which is why the burden of proof and falsification principle is so important.

 

View PostGkirmathal, on 10 October 2019 - 08:57 PM, said:

A way to debunk the crackpot theorist that claim: "WG has rigs my shots!#!".

But with proper data and not what is determined by testing only "by eye" and drawing a circle on a napkin to log where a shot landed.

We have that fantastic tool by Baldrick that disproofs the "rigged teams" claims. Fantastic tool and info it gives if you ask me.

 

Because the api does not provide data on 'shot distribution', a.k. where a shot landed in relation to the target and aim circle size. Nor on pen roll info. Properly registering/logging this and being able to analyze it...well becomes a bit impossible.

Thus these "rig claims" persist on and on.

 

Now the only way to approach this by  "approximation by eye", like recently DezGames has done in his test. Not a particular efficient way to gather good data that can be analyzed. It's an approximation at best.

 

So I have been pondering this on and off: if we recreated DezGames's his test, but shot at a wall, so the decals would be very visible.

How can this visual information be registered by means of software, auto logged in a usable format, so that it can be used to calculate where on the gaussian bell curve (derived from current shot sigma) a shot fell in relation to the aim circle (not forgetting making fancy graphs).

Given that the aim circle can be determined in the same a similar visual fashion, perhaps with mod that makes it more visible.

 

 

People have run tests like these, not with a napkin but by using a reticle painted on targets to determine shot distribution. Some have ran tests without it (guessing that DezGames test is one of those) and one forumite, who incidentally has posted a lot on the side of the "it's rigged" claimants, did some tests on the nature of the aiming circle which called into question the conventional wisdom of what the aiming circle represents and it was quite a constructive conversation. More pointedly the test showed that the size of the aiming circle is larger than the maximum size of your shot disperson on your actual target and is related to a far larger distance.

 

See if you can find Brumbar's work on aiming if you're interested, he did a lot of measurements and mathematics on the aiming process, including aiming times and dispersion.

 

 

Quite frankly though I think no amount of evidence is ever going to convince some people that the game isn't rigged, because they already ignore evidence that is readily available. For example our poster zsplinterz above claims that if your winrate exceeds 60% a mechanism activates to push you back down, yet he ignores that accounts exist which have 80+% winrates over thousands of battles because these people stacked the deck in order to beat the RNG. The original poster of this thread ignores basic mathematics by claiming that a 70-80% chance should succeed 100% of the time. Most claims of rigging aren't about facts, they're about assigning blame and making themselves feel better about the situation.

 

While I fully understand that emotion (especially after playing XCOM 2), it doesn't have anything to do with reality. All these threads about rigging and we're still waiting for the first bit positivistic evidence for rigging.


Edited by Dorander, 11 October 2019 - 12:00 AM.


Argedeava #55 Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:22 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39728 battles
  • 669
  • [SKUT] SKUT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2013

View PostStevies_Team, on 10 October 2019 - 10:02 AM, said:

The fact that WoT don't do proper open competitions is enough proof of jiggery pokery

 

Still fun to play though

THIS:

"proper open competitions"

would make the game healthy gamewise again.

Other it will remain subject for any customer.

The game was made before any "premium contributors" apeared. Became popular due to people appreciating the game for what it is. And only later became subject for sales accompanied by fake claims from "fellow forummites with more posts than games" like "if no contributors..no game".



Baldrickk #56 Posted 12 October 2019 - 10:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,875
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostArgedeava, on 12 October 2019 - 05:22 AM, said:

THIS:

"proper open competitions"

would make the game healthy gamewise again.

Other it will remain subject for any customer.

The game was made before any "premium contributors" apeared. Became popular due to people appreciating the game for what it is. And only later became subject for sales accompanied by fake claims from "fellow forummites with more posts than games" like "if no contributors..no game".

 What are you on about?

What's an open competition? You're agreeing with an undefined term. 

 

If the game became popular die to people seeing the game for what it is why can't they continue to do so?

 

Premium has always been in the game.  Or was made by a business, businesses need to make money. 

It used to be worse.  Gold ammo cost gold. Three man platoons required premium...

 

And yes,  if no-one pays anything, then yes, the game dies be cause it costs money to run. And the company wants to make money because it's a company. 



BravelyRanAway #57 Posted 12 October 2019 - 10:42 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 24462 battles
  • 12,195
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostArgedeava, on 12 October 2019 - 04:22 AM, said:

The game was made before any "premium contributors" apeared. 

Good grief.......do you know anything at all about how businesses start up, especially in the online gaming world?



Miepie #58 Posted 12 October 2019 - 11:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4695 battles
  • 1,384
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-19-2018

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 12 October 2019 - 10:42 AM, said:

Good grief.......do you know anything at all about how businesses start up, especially in the online gaming world?

...with an 80's musical montage in which Victor and Serb work as dishwashers during the daytime while coding HARD during the evenings and nights, ending with an high five when they finally achieved a working tank battle? :great:

 



Gremlin182 #59 Posted 12 October 2019 - 11:18 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 59113 battles
  • 9,681
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

The game uses software to simulate what happens when a shell hits and its not always perfect.

Sometimes you fire a shell at a tank knowing perfectly well that given the penetration and damage of that shell and the armour of the target its a kill.

It always should be a kill rng or no rng.

 

20mm or armour cannot stop a 120 mm shell with 200 pen except sometimes in the game it does, not often I grant you but it does happen.

They determine that it hit the tracks and was absorbed somehow.

We all know that in reality it should have gone through those tracks and the hull anything inside the vehicle out the other side of the tank through those tracks and buried itself in the ground several hundred meters away.

Its a game and there are flaws, reality to me says I cannot keep shooting the wheel of a tank and continue to do damage until the tank runs out of hit points or that a shell hitting a cupola will destroy the optics and may deflect down into the tank but is just as likely to rip that cupola apart and do minimal damage to the tank itself.

 

If you want shells to nearly always hit what you aim at and do realistic damage then you need to play a tank simlator not a semi realistic tank game.

Most of the time the shells do what they are supposed to do, but not always.

 



ValkyrionX #60 Posted 12 October 2019 - 11:26 AM

    Major

  • Moderator
  • 54438 battles
  • 2,682
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    02-07-2015

rng is the only thing that makes this game interesting

 

stop write stupid things if you don't even know what you're talking about, please







Also tagged with RNG

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users