Jump to content


Blacklisted players

bad players spammers bots eula rigged matchmaking blacklist blacklisted players rng

  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

Slyspy #61 Posted 19 November 2019 - 11:43 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14733 battles
  • 17,503
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostPudd1ng, on 19 November 2019 - 11:13 AM, said:

Something I'd just like to add here:

I have a number of tanks - the ones I play most - with 5, 6, & even 7 crew skills, many of them also have enhanced equipment. You might think that this would give me (and hence my team) a small advantage in games, which should translate into an increase in Win Rate, however small. I don't think I've become a worse player, and in fact I think I'm improving, so why is my Win Rate falling ?

Is it possible that as a long-time player I'm seen by WG as a "problem" player because (apart from a long-standing premium account) I don't spend much money ? Perhaps I get a worse MM ? (To make the game more of a "challenge" ?)

 

The reality is that those skills make relatively little difference in the random game environment. They certainly haven't contributed to any significant increase in your damage output, for example. 



LincolnTank #62 Posted 19 November 2019 - 11:52 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11712 battles
  • 510
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-17-2015
If you’re on the naughty list does that mean Krampus is coming for you this Christmas?

TungstenHitman #63 Posted 19 November 2019 - 11:52 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31767 battles
  • 6,302
  • [B_M_G] B_M_G
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostMaick3l, on 17 November 2019 - 09:49 PM, said:


And one more thing. I see your weekly stats on wotinfo.net and it's an unimmpressive decline. Yet your win rate is exactly 50%

Efficiency rating 1,055.542 (-132.837) average
WN7 1,087.947 (-100.431) average
WN8 1,377.656 (-80.079) good
 
Whereas mine are higher with a 46% win rate
Efficiency rating 1,421.286 (+459.74) good 
WN7 1,186.727 (+209.213) good
WN8 1,782.488 (+613.728) very good

 

I know.. I just suck right

 

Most likely yes. Btw, 1,782 WN8 Isn't "very good" the notion is laughable in fact. These sites really shouldn't apply such flattering indications, it just makes a player delusional and get to thinking they should have high win rates for meh performances. 



LincolnTank #64 Posted 19 November 2019 - 12:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11712 battles
  • 510
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-17-2015
Just  Blame E.R.N.I.E

‘Forget all your wives tales
Of forecasts and dividends
When E.R.N.I.E. feels vibrations
Only pays out to trusted friends…’

NUKLEAR_SLUG #65 Posted 19 November 2019 - 12:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 35288 battles
  • 5,215
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostPudd1ng, on 19 November 2019 - 11:13 AM, said:

Is it possible that as a long-time player I'm seen by WG as a "problem" player because (apart from a long-standing premium account) I don't spend much money ? Perhaps I get a worse MM ? (To make the game more of a "challenge" ?)

 

No. As a long time premium account holder you are literally everything WG wants in a player. If they were going rig anything at all they'd be falling over themselves to rig it in your favour to keep you happy and keep you paying for that premium time.

 

I really don't understand where people get this idea in their head that WG would ever rig the game against them to make them want to give WG more money. If you thought WG were rigging your games would you feel a sudden urge to put your hand in your pocket and throw your cash at WG? Why? 



JollyRogerz #66 Posted 19 November 2019 - 12:03 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15332 battles
  • 32
  • [SKIL5] SKIL5
  • Member since:
    02-06-2018

Nah I don't think theres such code in the game. But you're probably going through a really bad streak, sure you're trying your best and you're not getting wins but its not all in your control. Happens to me all the time, what I do is I step away from the game, watch a few youtube videos about the game from funny streamers and learn a few new things while having a laugh.

 

Sometimes your actions in a match are not reflected in your post battle stats, for example your sheer presence on a flank while not doing a single thing might decide the outcome of a battle. You'll probably get flak for it ingame but sometimes you finish a game with low damage but you were in a critical spot holding the enemy while not being able to take a shot but your team was able to farm the hell out of them from another angle. In that case your stats didnt define your performance in a match but you made a difference. Happens to me more often than I would have imagined. 

 

Btw not sure what makes you angry in game, for me it had nothing to do with what people say in game, it was pure full time gold spammers, sure its part of the game but because of some strange honor thing I have, I always start with standard ammo and then when i see what im facing I might switch. So what I did was disable the damage indicator in the log, meaning i never knew if I got penned by gold or standard ammo. It worked wonders for me. There might be some parts of the game that will always make you angry (ex. arta) but maybe you can adjust your settings to not get as angry (disable ingame chat for a few matches, remove damage indicator in log etc). Just a thought. 

 



RamRaid90 #67 Posted 19 November 2019 - 12:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 26486 battles
  • 7,337
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostMaick3l, on 16 November 2019 - 08:55 PM, said:

 Even if the team had only 10 players, a constant afk player should have 40% win rate on average with a small margin of error. He is one out of 10 and accounts for 10%, on average. That's precise math.

 

That's not how math works.



Baldrickk #68 Posted 19 November 2019 - 12:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32316 battles
  • 16,978
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostTungstenHitman, on 19 November 2019 - 11:52 AM, said:

 

Most likely yes. Btw, 1,782 WN8 Isn't "very good" the notion is laughable in fact. These sites really shouldn't apply such flattering indications, it just makes a player delusional and get to thinking they should have high win rates for meh performances. 

Annoyingly, they match skill groupings against the average player,  that is, all accounts over 1k battles,  active or not.

Due to the turnover of bad players, the average win-rate of active players is higher.

Currently,  that's 

Recent Win Rate: 50.28%
Recent WN8: 1249

 

Before the template MM changes, this was higher, sitting at about 54%*

 

Really, they should base average off of these values. 

They also go either side of the values they use, so lower than average is still called average, by a fairly significant chunk of WN8.

 

That said,  almost 1800 WN8 is by no stretch of the imagination bad. 

It's no Unicum,  but given the current skill levels in the game,  that's pretty high up. Within the top 5%.

 

* Spoiler *

 



chainreact0r #69 Posted 19 November 2019 - 01:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35185 battles
  • 540
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 19 November 2019 - 12:03 PM, said:

 If you thought WG were rigging your games would you feel a sudden urge to put your hand in your pocket and throw your cash at WG? Why? 

You would if you also thought that buying stuff will make you win more, which the mentally disabled sure as hell do, considering how many accounts exist with 46%wr and 20+ premium tanks.



TungstenHitman #70 Posted 19 November 2019 - 01:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31767 battles
  • 6,302
  • [B_M_G] B_M_G
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostBaldrickk, on 19 November 2019 - 11:36 AM, said:

Annoyingly, they match skill groupings against the average player,  that is, all accounts over 1k battles,  active or not.

Due to the turnover of bad players, the average win-rate of active players is higher.

Currently,  that's 

Recent Win Rate: 50.28%
Recent WN8: 1249

 

Before the template MM changes, this was higher, sitting at about 54%*

 

Really, they should base average off of these values. 

They also go either side of the values they use, so lower than average is still called average, by a fairly significant chunk of WN8.

 

That said,  almost 1800 WN8 is by no stretch of the imagination bad. 

It's no Unicum,  but given the current skill levels in the game,  that's pretty high up. Within the top 5%.

 

* Spoiler *

 

 

Ya 1800 is pretty solid, I'm certainly not saying it's bad or anything close. It's just that when you look at these stat sites it really makes out players to think they are better than they are and get all worked up that they can't win more than their stats wouldn't suggest they can. 40%, 60% just a couple of battles either way for every 10 battles played as we know but there's a bigger picture, it's EVERYTHING that happens within those 10 battles and plenty of things that can never be factored like the where, the what and the when, in regards to engagement times, the chosen targets, who and what you killed there's just so many factors and variables.

 

That said, I think a re-evaluated version of some stat sites is in order. On the left is what wotlabs would currently reads a validates as the good, the bad and the ugly. On the right is a quick assessment of what I would feel is a more realistic outlook on player stats... give or take a % or two.

 



chainreact0r #71 Posted 19 November 2019 - 01:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35185 battles
  • 540
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011

View PostBaldrickk, on 19 November 2019 - 12:36 PM, said:

Annoyingly, they match skill groupings against the average player,  that is, all accounts over 1k battles,  active or not.

Due to the turnover of bad players, the average win-rate of active players is higher.

Currently,  that's 

Recent Win Rate: 50.28%
Recent WN8: 1249

 

Before the template MM changes, this was higher, sitting at about 54%*

 

Really, they should base average off of these values. 

They also go either side of the values they use, so lower than average is still called average, by a fairly significant chunk of WN8.

 

That said,  almost 1800 WN8 is by no stretch of the imagination bad. 

It's no Unicum,  but given the current skill levels in the game,  that's pretty high up. Within the top 5%.

 

* Spoiler *

 

How can the average active player's winrate drop from 54 to 50 if the good players left? It should go up since they have less competent opposition on average? Unless the number and impact of unicums who left was that big, which i kinda doubt.



TungstenHitman #72 Posted 19 November 2019 - 01:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31767 battles
  • 6,302
  • [B_M_G] B_M_G
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postchainreact0r, on 19 November 2019 - 12:24 PM, said:

How can the average active player's winrate drop from 54 to 50 if the good players left? It should go up since they have less competent opposition on average? Unless the number and impact of unicums who left was that big, which i kinda doubt.

 

Good point.



BR33K1_PAWAH #73 Posted 19 November 2019 - 01:59 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 8158 battles
  • 2,079
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018

View Postchainreact0r, on 19 November 2019 - 03:24 PM, said:

How can the average active player's winrate drop from 54 to 50 if the good players left? It should go up since they have less competent opposition on average? Unless the number and impact of unicums who left was that big, which i kinda doubt.

He also has less parple teammates to carry games for him :P



NUKLEAR_SLUG #74 Posted 19 November 2019 - 03:09 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 35288 battles
  • 5,215
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostTungstenHitman, on 19 November 2019 - 01:19 PM, said:

 

Ya 1800 is pretty solid, I'm certainly not saying it's bad or anything close. It's just that when you look at these stat sites it really makes out players to think they are better than they are and get all worked up that they can't win more than their stats wouldn't suggest they can. 40%, 60% just a couple of battles either way for every 10 battles played as we know but there's a bigger picture, it's EVERYTHING that happens within those 10 battles and plenty of things that can never be factored like the where, the what and the when, in regards to engagement times, the chosen targets, who and what you killed there's just so many factors and variables.

 

1800 is pretty decent in terms of WN8, if that's the only thing you look at, and something you would normally attribute to a correspondingly half decent WR, which is why for OP to supposedly be maintaining a 40%ish WR for four months indicates that he must be doing something seriously wrong on a regular basis. 



Maick3l #75 Posted 19 November 2019 - 03:43 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11729 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View PostTungstenHitman, on 19 November 2019 - 11:52 AM, said:

 

Most likely yes. Btw, 1,782 WN8 Isn't "very good" the notion is laughable in fact. These sites really shouldn't apply such flattering indications, it just makes a player delusional and get to thinking they should have high win rates for meh performances. 


I fully agree! But it doesn't mean I play worse than an afk bot either. Or that I pull the team down since most of them do worse.



TungstenHitman #76 Posted 19 November 2019 - 04:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31767 battles
  • 6,302
  • [B_M_G] B_M_G
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostMaick3l, on 19 November 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:


I fully agree! But it doesn't mean I play worse than an afk bot either. Or that I pull the team down since most of them do worse.

 

Didn't say you did. I'm more outlining that there are very few players in this game with the genuine skill and damage output to turn really one sided battles into wins, very very few. Most all of us are at the mercy of how MM draws the teams and so while's it's impossible not to get frustrated at this game when the cards are dealt that way, we really shouldn't get buzzed because we are just 1 player in a 30 player battle and it's a team game not solo so what we can do as a player individually is limited, especially when 14 teammates show literally no interest in fighting or any clue that they even know one end of a tank from another. 

 

So I guess my point is, unless you're killing most the enemy team, removing most all the enemy teams damage, spotting them for the entire battle so even the most Muppet of Muppets on your team will eventually fricken shoot the damn thing... there's not much us players that fall into the category of very good to average can do about it. Only the God like players can stop the rot in these periodic flows of horrible teams and even at that they still can't keep the losses off their back only they manage to dig deep and claw a few wins out of what was surely a loss for 99% of the playerbase in the same position. 



Corsz #77 Posted 19 November 2019 - 04:40 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 35618 battles
  • 52
  • [ACT1V] ACT1V
  • Member since:
    04-20-2014

View PostGodTank2, on 16 November 2019 - 09:06 PM, said:

How can the matchmaker be designed for more losses than victories when in every game 1 team is the winner and 1 is the loser?

 There is also draw which counts as a lose. So defeat+draw > win. 



Homer_J #78 Posted 19 November 2019 - 05:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 33143 battles
  • 36,644
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postchainreact0r, on 19 November 2019 - 01:24 PM, said:

How can the average active player's winrate drop from 54 to 50 if the good players left? It should go up since they have less competent opposition on average? Unless the number and impact of unicums who left was that big, which i kinda doubt.

 

It's not the winrate of the average player, it's the average winrate of all the players who are still active enough to be classed as active.

 

There's probably a multitude of reasons combining to give that effect.

17:02 Added after 4 minute

View PostBaldrickk, on 19 November 2019 - 10:27 AM, said:

It was suggested on page 1, 3 days ago, that you run your replays through a MM analyser.
Have you done that yet? What were the results?

 

I'm guessing the results didn't match his pre existing theory.



Baldrickk #79 Posted 19 November 2019 - 07:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32316 battles
  • 16,978
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postchainreact0r, on 19 November 2019 - 01:24 PM, said:

How can the average active player's winrate drop from 54 to 50 if the good players left? It should go up since they have less competent opposition on average? Unless the number and impact of unicums who left was that big, which i kinda doubt.

There are a couple of factors at play here.

 

One is the hugely skewed nature of the player base.

You know how some people call average players bad? That's actually true.

If you plot out players skill ratings, you find that it doesn't result in a normal/Gaussian distribution like you might expect.

Instead, the distribution you get is a skewed normal. In short, the graph 'leans' to one side, in this case, towards 0.  This is the case for WR, WN6-8 and both PR ratings, so isn't a rating system quirk.

What this means is that the playerbase is far more sensitive to fluctuations in the number of good players, than it is poor players. 

If you had a school class with 30 village idiots and one future Einstein, having the Einstein move away, leaving the class would affect the class' overall grade far more than removing one of the idiots. 

The inverse is true, or rather,  it's true for any extreme, which is why teachers in good schools spend a disproportionate amount of time working with the thick kids*, over working on getting the rest of the class. It's worth more to the school's rating than the average kids getting slightly better. 

 

In short, the loss of a "few" good players stands out in the stats far more than an equivalent number of bad players. 

 

Somewhat linked,  a bad/average player isn't going to win more than they would before. 

Helped by the skewed nature of the skill distribution (in that it's easier to reason about), in that they're relatively rare in the first place, when an average player sees a Unicum, they could be in any slot on either team.

If you were to remove all Unicums, it would drastically affect the makeup of that battle (see above point) however, because the good players will be equally distributed across the teams, the net result is 0.  That is,  players may win the battles that are no longer against Unicums that manages to turn the tide,  but by the same measure, they'll lose the battles they only won because the Unicum on their team carried. 

 The skewed nature helps us again here, as we can simplify our model of the population. Instead of simplifying to a block of "fairly average" players surrounded by good and bad extremes, the bad extreme is so close to the average that we can fudge those players into the "fairly average" category, and reason about just average vs very good. While not completely correct,  it's a "good enough" model for our purposes.

Using the fact that "nearly average" players will see their personal win rates not change**, if we were to just remove all the "very good" players, we would see almost no change in the win-rate of the "fairly average" players. 

We only get the recent active results for the "fairly average" players, and the few good players remaining once the majority of good players are removed, so we get the far closer to 50% overall score. 

 

* Spoiler *

 

** Spoiler **

 

18:04 Added after 1 minute

View PostBaldrickk, on 19 November 2019 - 07:03 PM, said:

* lots of words *

Not that I've given the matter much thought at all... 

18:07 Added after 4 minute

View PostTungstenHitman, on 19 November 2019 - 01:19 PM, said:

 

Ya 1800 is pretty solid, I'm certainly not saying it's bad or anything close. It's just that when you look at these stat sites it really makes out players to think they are better than they are and get all worked up that they can't win more than their stats wouldn't suggest they can. 40%, 60% just a couple of battles either way for every 10 battles played as we know but there's a bigger picture, it's EVERYTHING that happens within those 10 battles and plenty of things that can never be factored like the where, the what and the when, in regards to engagement times, the chosen targets, who and what you killed there's just so many factors and variables.

 

That said, I think a re-evaluated version of some stat sites is in order. On the left is what wotlabs would currently reads a validates as the good, the bad and the ugly. On the right is a quick assessment of what I would feel is a more realistic outlook on player stats... give or take a % or two.

 

 Yeah,  I'd tend to agree with your skill level names. 

 

Unfortunately "skill" is kind of an abstract concept, and there's not a nice linear scale to place people on.

So position in the population is used. Which would work better in a normal distribution. 



Pudd1ng #80 Posted 20 November 2019 - 11:44 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 46809 battles
  • 18
  • [LOTT] LOTT
  • Member since:
    08-26-2012

"The reality is that those skills make relatively little difference in the random game environment. They certainly haven't contributed to any significant increase in your damage output, for example."

Damage is subjective. If, as I assume, you've looked at my stats then you'd know I play the vast majority of my games in scouts. My job is to spot the enemy so my team can do the damage, and any damage I do *should* be insignificant by comparison. My point was that I am playing better as a scout, spotting more enemies, having more successful "Glory runs" on arty & campers, & generally making a bigger nuisance of myself.

 

"No. As a long time premium account holder you are literally everything WG wants in a player. If they were going rig anything at all they'd be falling over themselves to rig it in your favour to keep you happy and keep you paying for that premium time."

But wouldn't that be a sure sign that the game was P2W ? I'm sure it isn't, but I'm also sure that WG want people to *think* it is because then they might be more willing to spend money.

 

"Nah I don't think theres such code in the game. But you're probably going through a really bad streak"

Then it's a heck of a bad streak - My WR has been gradually falling for a couple of years. This account dates from 2012 & my WR was a fairly solid 54% for around 5 years, but has dropped to just over 50% now.

 

I suppose the question I'm asking is whether there's something in the MM to make the game more challenging for more experienced (not *better*) players ?







Also tagged with bad players, spammers, bots, eula, rigged, matchmaking, blacklist, blacklisted players, rng

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users