|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 14, 2017 14:55:37 GMT -5
I'm going to start this rant with my one big assumption, that I cannot back up with any shred of evidence or proof: Pixonic does not have anything coded into the MM system that specifically targets and picks on individual players. You can disagree with that if you'd like, and if you disagree with that one assumption, this entire rant has no basis for you.
Now, to the rant. You are the reason your win rate sucks. You. And only you. Not one single other person.
But I always get the short end of the stick with my random teammates being terrible!! I'm sorry, no you don't. This is where that assumption comes into play. Without specific coding that is targeting your account, there is no way you are getting the short end of the stick in the long run. People always ignore when an anomaly works out in their favor, because they just think "things are back to normal and I won a game". Perhaps you won that game so easily because the other team got shafted with bad players.
A crappy teammate or two can most certainly affect the outcome of a single game. But the crappy opponent or two will certainly affect the outcome of your next game, or whenever it happens. In the long run, you will have just as many crappy opponents as you will have crappy teammates.
Guess what! The same applies to amazing players with 12/12 hangars. Sure, you might face one in one game, and get run over. Three games later, you have one by your side annihilating reds with you. But you ignore that, because it doesn't make you feel good to pay attention to the games that were won because of a favorable advantage rather than your overall amazing amazingness!!!
Take your 50 game average win rate for an example. That's a large enough sample to assume that the sides were probably fairly evenly balanced overall. You may have had 10 games that were decided by crappy teammates or overpowered opposition, 10 games that were decided by crappy opponents or overpowered teammates, and 30 games that were well balanced. The fact of the matter is, it goes both ways.
The only constant variable in every game you have ever played is you. If your long-term win rate is bad, you are the only possible explanation for it. It is entirely your fault. It may be caused by several different things. -You might just suck. Your bad play is causing your teams to lose more often than not. (You are that player people complain about getting on their team) -You might be using ineffective bot setups for the league you're in. This forces you to play in a way that simply doesn't work at your current tier. -You're incredible at dealing damage. Yes, that will hurt your win rate eventually. You will climb in leagues, even when you lose, so you'll get yourself outmatched. You created the circumstances that led to that.
There are many things that factor into a low win ratio. But the common factor is you. So stop blaming other people for your success or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Scuzzbopper on Jul 14, 2017 15:01:47 GMT -5
Here's an idea: stop worrying about your win rate, stop worrying about your league. League advancement bonus is trivial.
|
|
|
Post by bugdoc on Jul 14, 2017 15:13:26 GMT -5
Agree with the OP. I haven't seen anything that suggests the MM is anything but a randomized selector. Losing streaks may feel like the universe is conspiring against you, but it's a simple result of random chance. Random distributions are seldom even distributions: They tend to be somewhat clumped, thus the tendency to produce winning and losing streaks.
Win rates in an Elo system (like War Robots) will tend to reach an equilibrium around 50%. The current points rewards are a bit skewed - thus resulting in some outliers - but I strongly suspect most players will settle in around 50%.
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Jul 14, 2017 15:19:34 GMT -5
I'n not a fan of the idea that win and loss streaks are coded into the MM, although they could be. You'd need hard stats to convince me that they happen more than one would expect by chance over a long series of matches. Note, however, that Pixonic wouldn't need to target individual accounts to implement this. They would simply need to include win rate among the MM considerations: try to balance high win rate players with low win rate players. Pix claims they only use league points.
What I find amusing is the concept that if the win rate fixing is true, one should be able to look at the win rates of all the blues after each match. See someone on your team with a 70% win rate? Did your team lose? That may mean you are one of the terrible teammates Pixonic picked to sink that poor fellow's win rate!
You stink!
-Amid
|
|
rocklobster
Destrier
Posts: 57
Karma: 28
Pilot name: Rock_Lobster
Platform: Android
League: Champion
|
Post by rocklobster on Jul 14, 2017 16:55:29 GMT -5
The rubber band effect of MM is obvious.
Whether that's part of the code or not? No idea.
|
|
|
Post by drake1588 on Jul 14, 2017 17:17:53 GMT -5
Normally I'd agree, but for my last 20 matches, I've had 27 leavers on my team vs 4 on the reds. I was at a 70% win rate before that. If something similar didn't keep happening, I wouldn't think anything of it, but this is about the seventh or eight time this exact same thing has happened over the last two months when I've gotten over 60% win rate for significant periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Linguini on Jul 14, 2017 21:36:06 GMT -5
Sorry, but horse?poo-poo?. I'm not worried about win rate or league advancement. But I AM concerned with wins when I need to get 17 of them, and then 17 more, and then an ?bum-bum?-load more after that. And they don't come when I -- now back in Silver -- keep getting matched up against Diamond and Expert players. I won't go as far as to say MM is targeting me, but don't tell me it's 100% my fault when I'm so frequently the lowest ranked player on the field, usually when I need the wins. Skill only goes so far when you're up against teams full of hangars that are two or three levels above mine, to say nothing of the leavers and tankers.
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Jul 14, 2017 23:42:02 GMT -5
Mijapi300. I dont agree. The MM was tweaked some weeks ago and seems like the pull back was widened and the beat down is not as obvious. Before the tweak it was clear as day. By shear statistics, if the MM allocates based on the win rate (which it does) eventually you will be beat down bc the blues will get weaker bc of your high win rate. Thats how the beat down comes or the tougher matches.
Here is a challange and a survey to all. Provided you are not in the LQ, havent tanked down and play mostly solo - basiically the average player. what is your average?
|
|
|
Post by acdcfan on Jul 15, 2017 0:02:11 GMT -5
mijapi300 even Pixo has come out to say, their facebook page, that they algorithm is for a healthy 50% win ration. So no, I don't somewhat agree with what you're saying. I will agree that few bad team mates can influence match outcome on both side, but it cannot be constantly my fault in loosing. So even if I have a hanger designed for every league, you say that me,myself and I can win the match and have 30 kills and oh I don't know 20 beacons? It can't not be. Match outcome depends on all players in the team. Sometimes even matches where you're meched out and team has 5 players, can and will be a win.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 0:41:56 GMT -5
Normally I'd agree, but for my last 20 matches, I've had 27 leavers on my team vs 4 on the reds. I was at a 70% win rate before that. If something similar didn't keep happening, I wouldn't think anything of it, but this is about the seventh or eight time this exact same thing has happened over the last two months when I've gotten over 60% win rate for significant periods of time. How did you get to 70% on the first place? Perhaps a winning streak or two?
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 0:44:57 GMT -5
mijapi300 even Pixo has come out to say, their facebook page, that they algorithm is for a healthy 50% win ration. So no, I don't somewhat agree with what you're saying. I will agree that few bad team mates can influence match outcome on both side, but it cannot be constantly my fault in loosing. So even if I have a hanger designed for every league, you say that me,myself and I can win the match and have 30 kills and oh I don't know 20 beacons? It can't not be. Match outcome depends on all players in the team. Sometimes even matches where you're meched out and team has 5 players, can and will be a win. You're doing the same thing everyone does, using single games to try to argue your case. If you lose consistently in the long run, you're at fault. Over the course of 50 games, you are literally the only player that was on your team every single one of those games. If you win 35 of them, it was because you're great. If you won 15, it's because you're doing something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 0:47:19 GMT -5
Mijapi300. I dont agree. The MM was tweaked some weeks ago and seems like the pull back was widened and the beat down is not as obvious. Before the tweak it was clear as day. By shear statistics, if the MM allocates based on the win rate (which it does) eventually you will be beat down bc the blues will get weaker bc of your high win rate. Thats how the beat down comes or the tougher matches. Here is a challange and a survey to all. Provided you are not in the LQ, havent tanked down and play mostly solo - basiically the average player. what is your average? Where has it ever been documented that the MM allocates based on win rate? It allocated based on league ranking, which has absolutely nothing to do with win rate. It's literally possible to get to Champion's league without winning a single game. Literally - it is possible for an account to have 0 lifetime wins and over 5,000 league points. Win ratio hardly plays a factor in MM, compared to damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 0:53:47 GMT -5
Why argue with an idea that has no facts to back it up? In turn why argue against a rebuttle, that stemmed from a baseless opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jul 15, 2017 1:31:31 GMT -5
The MM is designed to give a Player a 50% Chance to Win if all Players play to the best of their ability. If a Player exceeds a certain percentage, that Player will be faced against ever increasing stronger Opponents until 50/50 is normalized. Hence Win/Loss streaks. There is a plethora of empirical data gathered by Players that support this conclusion. The question, mijapi300 is: "How does the game determine Who is What?" Because when a Player is forced to "normalize," all Players on the given Team Lose. So, the game must ensure that Players have an approximate 50/50. The game is playing - You ..
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 1:41:00 GMT -5
The MM is designed to give a Player a 50% Chance to Win if all Players play to the best of their ability. If a Player exceeds a certain percentage, that Player will be faced against ever increasing stronger Opponents until 50/50 is normalized. Hence Win/Loss streaks. There is a plethora of empirical data gathered by Players that support this conclusion. The question, mijapi300 is: "How does the game determine Who is What?" Because when a Player is forced to "normalize," all Players on the given Team Lose. So, the game must ensure that Players have an approximate 50/50. The game is playing - You .. Nowhere has it been documented that the matchmaker considers win ratio. The design of the league system forces a likely 50% win ratio based on averages. Any ELO type system will, because it theoretically moves you up until you can't win anymore, and then you level out. That doesn't mean the matchmaker is specifically taking people with certain win ratios and intentionally matching them with crap. That was my whole first paragraph though, so if you actually believe that's a thing, then my opinion is baseless as far as you're concerned. If you accept the fact that an ELO type league system is the cause of the 50% win ratios, then my opinion is applicable.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 1:42:03 GMT -5
Why argue with an idea that has no facts to back it up? In turn why argue against a rebuttle, that stemmed from a baseless opinion? Why rebut an opinion without presenting facts, and then bring up lack of facts as an argument against said opinion? EDIT: This is like a rapidly spreading disease here, that I've noticed you take part in consistently. You find an opinion, that's even stated as an opinion based on one single assumption, that you don't agree with. You then say some variation of words that always mean some form of "your opinion is wrong because you didn't provide any facts", yet you've never provided any facts to back up your opinions, which you also stand firmly by. This "argument" is used constantly to shoot down people's opinions around here, and yet not facts are presented. You're like Donald Trump just screaming "WRONG!" in a debate, without any followup or reasoning. If you want to debate an opinion, debate it. If you want to debate something presented as fact, rebut it and provide your counterfacts. But if you simply want to say something is wrong just for the sake of disagreeing, why waste the post? You literally contributed nothing except a snarky, negative remark. I've seen new forum members leave the forum because of crap like that. It's uncalled for, annoying, offputting, and worst of all hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jul 15, 2017 1:49:04 GMT -5
The MM is designed to give a Player a 50% Chance to Win if all Players play to the best of their ability. If a Player exceeds a certain percentage, that Player will be faced against ever increasing stronger Opponents until 50/50 is normalized. Hence Win/Loss streaks. There is a plethora of empirical data gathered by Players that support this conclusion. The question, mijapi300 is: "How does the game determine Who is What?" Because when a Player is forced to "normalize," all Players on the given Team Lose. So, the game must ensure that Players have an approximate 50/50. The game is playing - You .. Nowhere has it been documented that the matchmaker considers win ratio. The design of the league system forces a likely 50% win ratio based on averages. Any ELO type system will, because it theoretically moves you up until you can't win anymore, and then you level out. That doesn't mean the matchmaker is specifically taking people with certain win ratios and intentionally matching them with crap. That was my whole first paragraph though, so if you actually believe that's a thing, then my opinion is baseless as far as you're concerned. If you accept the fact that an ELO type league system is the cause of the 50% win ratios, then my opinion is applicable. Elo does not enforce a 50%, anything. Elo is used to determine a Point value based upon Ranking in a Win/Lose scenario. You can't just dismiss all the data collected by Players, that's madness. You have a Theory which is a series of propositions that form a hypothesis based upon conjecture. What Players have is a series of "facts" that explain a given phenomenon. You decide which is more likely ..
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 1:56:06 GMT -5
Nowhere has it been documented that the matchmaker considers win ratio. The design of the league system forces a likely 50% win ratio based on averages. Any ELO type system will, because it theoretically moves you up until you can't win anymore, and then you level out. That doesn't mean the matchmaker is specifically taking people with certain win ratios and intentionally matching them with crap. That was my whole first paragraph though, so if you actually believe that's a thing, then my opinion is baseless as far as you're concerned. If you accept the fact that an ELO type league system is the cause of the 50% win ratios, then my opinion is applicable. Elo does not enforce a 50%, anything. Elo is used to determine a Point value based upon Ranking in a Win/Lose scenario. You can't just dismiss all the data collected by Players, that's madness. You have a Theory which is a series of propositions that form a hypothesis based upon conjecture. What Players have is a series of "facts" that explain a given phenomenon. You decide which is more likely .. I haven't seen any of these statistics, so a link would be appreciated. If the data says one thing, I'll change my opinion accordingly. Based on what you're saying though, the "data" will show that every time there is a player with a 70% win rate, he is matched with a 30% guy to try to force him to lose. If that's what the data shows on a long-term and consistent basis with a large enough sample size, then I will believe the conspiracy theory that the matchmaker picks on people that lose a lot. Until I've seen data that proves otherwise, a much more likely explanation of 50% win rates is that you move up when you win and down when you lose. So you win a lot, you move up a lot, you face tougher competition. Once you got higher than you can handle, you start losing. When you start losing you start dropping, until competition becomes easier. Rinse and repeat a few times until you've settled into the league ranking you belong in, and you'll naturally be around 50%. This is how it's always been based on my experience, in my main account and second. I haven't tracked the data for it, but I generally win around 70-80% until I reach a league where my weapon levels are outmatched by too much and I can't win. Then I start losing and settle in around 50-60%.
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jul 15, 2017 1:59:30 GMT -5
Elo does not enforce a 50%, anything. Elo is used to determine a Point value based upon Ranking in a Win/Lose scenario. You can't just dismiss all the data collected by Players, that's madness. You have a Theory which is a series of propositions that form a hypothesis based upon conjecture. What Players have is a series of "facts" that explain a given phenomenon. You decide which is more likely .. I haven't seen any of these statistics, so a link would be appreciated. If the data says one thing, I'll change my opinion accordingly. Based on what you're saying though, the "data" will show that every time there is a player with a 70% win rate, he is matched with a 30% guy to try to force him to lose. If that's what the data shows on a long-term and consistent basis with a large enough sample size, then I will believe the conspiracy theory that the matchmaker picks on people that lose a lot. Until I've seen data that proves otherwise, a much more likely explanation of 50% win rates is that you move up when you win and down when you lose. So you win a lot, you move up a lot, you face tougher competition. Once you got higher than you can handle, you start losing. When you start losing you start dropping, until competition becomes easier. Rinse and repeat a few times until you've settled into the league ranking you belong in, and you'll naturally be around 50%. This is how it's always been based on my experience, in my main account and second. I haven't tracked the data for it, but I generally win around 70-80% until I reach a league where my weapon levels are outmatched by too much and I can't win. Then I start losing and settle in around 50-60%. Win ratios would not determine who Wins/Loses. The MM would put a 70%'er with a much less experienced Player to raise the Odds of a Loss, regardless if both Players had 70% Win rates.
|
|
|
Post by acdcfan on Jul 15, 2017 1:59:35 GMT -5
mijapi300 even Pixo has come out to say, their facebook page, that they algorithm is for a healthy 50% win ration. So no, I don't somewhat agree with what you're saying. I will agree that few bad team mates can influence match outcome on both side, but it cannot be constantly my fault in loosing. So even if I have a hanger designed for every league, you say that me,myself and I can win the match and have 30 kills and oh I don't know 20 beacons? It can't not be. Match outcome depends on all players in the team. Sometimes even matches where you're meched out and team has 5 players, can and will be a win. You're doing the same thing everyone does, using single games to try to argue your case. If you lose consistently in the long run, you're at fault. Over the course of 50 games, you are literally the only player that was on your team every single one of those games. If you win 35 of them, it was because you're great. If you won 15, it's because you're doing something wrong. So you're saying that when my win rations gets to about 60-65% and all of a sudden I start loosing and go down to below 50% is my fault? Then I start winning again get back up to 60-65 and start loosing. So all of these are my good play and my faults? ..I was not basing my argument on a single game , rather than the statement from Pixo facebook page " Healthy 50% wining ratio" ....I will see if I can find it. Over the course of 50 games wining % goes up and down but in the end it will end up at about 50% where you will get close matches. I have deliberately drop my winning ration to about 32% just to see and I ended up wining 12 games in the row climbing back up to close to 60% where I started loosing again. Again, my bad play or weak enemies?
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 2:09:21 GMT -5
I haven't seen any of these statistics, so a link would be appreciated. If the data says one thing, I'll change my opinion accordingly. Based on what you're saying though, the "data" will show that every time there is a player with a 70% win rate, he is matched with a 30% guy to try to force him to lose. If that's what the data shows on a long-term and consistent basis with a large enough sample size, then I will believe the conspiracy theory that the matchmaker picks on people that lose a lot. Until I've seen data that proves otherwise, a much more likely explanation of 50% win rates is that you move up when you win and down when you lose. So you win a lot, you move up a lot, you face tougher competition. Once you got higher than you can handle, you start losing. When you start losing you start dropping, until competition becomes easier. Rinse and repeat a few times until you've settled into the league ranking you belong in, and you'll naturally be around 50%. This is how it's always been based on my experience, in my main account and second. I haven't tracked the data for it, but I generally win around 70-80% until I reach a league where my weapon levels are outmatched by too much and I can't win. Then I start losing and settle in around 50-60%. Win ratios would not determine who Wins/Loses. The MM would put a 70%'er with a much less experienced Player to raise the Odds of a Loss, regardless if both Players had 70% Win rates. So you're saying if I'm in Gold I with a 70% win ratio, the MM detects that and matches me with Silver teammates on purpose? Or matches me against Diamond/Expert on purpose, because of my win rate?
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 2:13:02 GMT -5
You're doing the same thing everyone does, using single games to try to argue your case. If you lose consistently in the long run, you're at fault. Over the course of 50 games, you are literally the only player that was on your team every single one of those games. If you win 35 of them, it was because you're great. If you won 15, it's because you're doing something wrong. So you're saying that when my win rations gets to about 60-65% and all of a sudden I start loosing and go down to below 50% is my fault? Then I start winning again get back up to 60-65 and start loosing. So all of these are my good play and my faults? ..I was not basing my argument on a single game , rather than the statement from Pixo facebook page " Healthy 50% wining ratio" ....I will see if I can find it. Over the course of 50 games wining % goes up and down but in the end it will end up at about 50% where you will get close matches. I have deliberately drop my winning ration to about 32% just to see and I ended up wining 12 games in the row climbing back up to close to 60% where I started loosing again. Again, my bad play or weak enemies? When you dropped your win ratio intentionally to 32% (tanked), you lost league points. This put you at a league rating lower than you belong based on your hangar and skill, which led to easier matches until you climbed back to where you're supposed to be. When you go on little winning streaks, you're climbing into higher league ratings that you don't necessarily belong in. When you get too high, and you're too outmatched, you lose until you're back where you should be. Random streaks will happen, but it's just that, random. What I'm saying is that if you end up with a 30% win rate over 50 games without intentionally tanking, it's because you played bad. As I already stated, the only constant variable across every game you've ever played is you. Nothing else affects your long term stats more than you yourself and you.
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jul 15, 2017 2:13:47 GMT -5
Win ratios would not determine who Wins/Loses. The MM would put a 70%'er with a much less experienced Player to raise the Odds of a Loss, regardless if both Players had 70% Win rates. So you're saying if I'm in Gold I with a 70% win ratio, the MM detects that and matches me with Silver teammates on purpose? Or matches me against Diamond/Expert on purpose, because of my win rate? In its most basic form, Yes ..
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 15, 2017 2:14:44 GMT -5
The MM is designed to give a Player a 50% Chance to Win if all Players play to the best of their ability. If a Player exceeds a certain percentage, that Player will be faced against ever increasing stronger Opponents until 50/50 is normalized. Hence Win/Loss streaks. There is a plethora of empirical data gathered by Players that support this conclusion. The question, mijapi300 is: "How does the game determine Who is What?" Because when a Player is forced to "normalize," all Players on the given Team Lose. So, the game must ensure that Players have an approximate 50/50. The game is playing - You .. This is just plain wrong. There is no "forced" 50/50 based on your current win rate. Empirical data gathered by players is not evidence of this supposed conspiracy, just evidence that factors other than you yourself that are out of your control can cause your win rate to vary drastically. here is the only written explanation of how matchmaking in the War Robots league system works, written by Pixonic: The key problem of Champion league is a huge rating disparity between players. In the same league different players could have 5000, 8000 or even 13000 rating points. And matchmaking works the same way there as in other leagues: taking, say, our 13000 point player and slowly increasing the range in which it finds his teammates and opponents. First, 12990 to 13010. Then, second later, 12980 to 13020. And so on.
It is obvious that with such approach matchmaking can take forever sometimes. To address this we change how matchmaking system perceives all the points above 5000. Basically, we’re shrinking them tenfold. Say, 13000 turns into 5000 + (13000 – 5000)/10 = 5800 in the eyes of the algorithm, and 8000 makes 5000 + (8000-5000)/10 = 5300.warrobots.net/en/2017/05/22/upcoming-leagues-changes/ So now it is clear, the idea of the matchmaking is around league points, the league points distribution for win and lose is supposed to trend you up or down towards a group of similar players (who by design should also trend to your same league points) and when you are in the "right" place your win rate would naturally trend to 50% - this is a natural equilibrium and not the forced one that the conspiracy theorists suggest. now back to the OP's point - I don't think in this game as the system stands today it is correct to say win rate is entirely under your own control and the two biggest contributors to the randomness are: 1) poor functioning of the matchmaker (selecting player groups with significant variance in league points / ability); and 2) other player abnormal activity (connection loss, tanking, etc) the poor functioning of matchmaking can be from three areas: 1) poor design (flaws in underlying logic); 2) poor implementation (inefficient technical mechanics); and 3) lack of sufficient player pool (not a deep enough pool of players of a given skill level on line at any given time concurrently trying to enter a game) Now Pixonic can proactively manage 1 and 2, which they do continually as evidenced by the regular system tweaks, but point 3, player engagement, is the most critical and (short of implementing great AI players at all levels of the game) least controllable for Pixonic. So as of now their main goal is to make an effective, efficient matchmaking system that really works and really keeps players engaged. that is the best way for them to make money in both short and long term. They are also trying to manage abnormal player activity, but that is a harder task
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 2:15:58 GMT -5
So you're saying if I'm in Gold I with a 70% win ratio, the MM detects that and matches me with Silver teammates on purpose? Or matches me against Diamond/Expert on purpose, because of my win rate? In its most basic form, Yes .. I would like to see stats backing this up. If that's true, I'll gladly take my Bigfoot size shoe off and shove it right in my mouth. It needs to be gathered from every game the people are playing though, not just games recording during losing streaks. If there's a consistent pattern of lower ranked players versus higher ranked players when the lower ranked side has higher win %, then this whole thread is debunked.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 2:19:53 GMT -5
moses the point is that you'll be in imbalanced matches in your favor exactly as often as you are in imbalanced matches against your favor, given a long enough period of time for the randomness to average out. Meaning the poor matchmaker has no effect on your long term win ratio (the net effect is a wash). So if you are over or under 50% consistently, it is solely because of your play. If you hover around 50% consistently, then you're an average player.
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jul 15, 2017 2:30:31 GMT -5
The MM is designed to give a Player a 50% Chance to Win if all Players play to the best of their ability. If a Player exceeds a certain percentage, that Player will be faced against ever increasing stronger Opponents until 50/50 is normalized. Hence Win/Loss streaks. There is a plethora of empirical data gathered by Players that support this conclusion. The question, mijapi300 is: "How does the game determine Who is What?" Because when a Player is forced to "normalize," all Players on the given Team Lose. So, the game must ensure that Players have an approximate 50/50. The game is playing - You .. This is just plain wrong. There is no "forced" 50/50 based on your current win rate. Empirical data gathered by players is not evidence of this supposed conspiracy, just evidence that factors other than you yourself that are out of your control can cause your win rate to vary drastically. here is the only written explanation of how matchmaking in the War Robots league system works, written by Pixonic: The key problem of Champion league is a huge rating disparity between players. In the same league different players could have 5000, 8000 or even 13000 rating points. And matchmaking works the same way there as in other leagues: taking, say, our 13000 point player and slowly increasing the range in which it finds his teammates and opponents. First, 12990 to 13010. Then, second later, 12980 to 13020. And so on.
It is obvious that with such approach matchmaking can take forever sometimes. To address this we change how matchmaking system perceives all the points above 5000. Basically, we’re shrinking them tenfold. Say, 13000 turns into 5000 + (13000 – 5000)/10 = 5800 in the eyes of the algorithm, and 8000 makes 5000 + (8000-5000)/10 = 5300.warrobots.net/en/2017/05/22/upcoming-leagues-changes/ So now it is clear, the idea of the matchmaking is around league points, the league points distribution for win and lose is supposed to trend you up or down towards a group of similar players (who by design should also trend to your same league points) and when you are in the "right" place your win rate would naturally trend to 50% - this is a natural equilibrium and not the forced one that the conspiracy theorists suggest. now back to the OP's point - I don't think in this game as the system stands today it is correct to say win rate is entirely under your own control and the two biggest contributors to the randomness are: 1) poor functioning of the matchmaker (selecting player groups with significant variance in league points / ability); and 2) other player abnormal activity (connection loss, tanking, etc) the poor functioning of matchmaking can be from three areas: 1) poor design (flaws in underlying logic); 2) poor implementation (inefficient technical mechanics); and 3) lack of sufficient player pool (not a deep enough pool of players of a given skill level on line at any given time concurrently trying to enter a game) Now Pixonic can proactively manage 1 and 2, which they do continually as evidenced by the regular system tweaks, but point 3, player engagement, is the most critical and (short of implementing great AI players at all levels of the game) least controllable for Pixonic. So as of now their main goal is to make an effective, efficient matchmaking system that really works and really keeps players engaged. that is the best way for them to make money in both short and long term. They are also trying to manage abnormal player activity, but that is a harder task Firstly, using the term "conspiracy theorist" in such a condescending way shows lack of foresight and only shows cynicism. You have completely misunderstood the quote from Pixonic. The statement proves how a Player is matched within their own League/Tier. A 50/50 is not a normal function of anything. If Players were allowed to advance based upon their own merits, we would see a huge variance in Win/Loss. We do not. Therefore, it is reasonable to ascertain that there is a statistical average imposed. At least show data, Emperical or Imperical to make your case. Otherwise, You appear as the 'Theorist ..
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 15, 2017 2:31:21 GMT -5
moses the point is that you'll be in imbalanced matches in your favor exactly as often as you are in imbalanced matches against your favor, given a long enough period of time for the randomness to average out. Meaning the poor matchmaker has no effect on your long term win ratio (the net effect is a wash). So if you are over or under 50% consistently, it is solely because of your play. If you hover around 50% consistently, then you're an average player. Fair enough - on long term perspective that should be true. With the caveat that you are an average player within your current peer group (league wise). Given the significant volatility some people are observing then maybe 50 matches is not a sufficient sample on which to calculate the metric. This is the direct reason why they reintroduced positive league points for losing team top players to disconnect short term win ratio from league standing.
|
|
|
Post by Firebeard on Jul 15, 2017 2:32:31 GMT -5
In its most basic form, Yes .. I would like to see stats backing this up. If that's true, I'll gladly take my Bigfoot size shoe off and shove it right in my mouth. It needs to be gathered from every game the people are playing though, not just games recording during losing streaks. If there's a consistent pattern of lower ranked players versus higher ranked players when the lower ranked side has higher win %, then this whole thread is debunked. Do a Forum search - it's everywhere ..
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 15, 2017 2:34:23 GMT -5
I would like to see stats backing this up. If that's true, I'll gladly take my Bigfoot size shoe off and shove it right in my mouth. It needs to be gathered from every game the people are playing though, not just games recording during losing streaks. If there's a consistent pattern of lower ranked players versus higher ranked players when the lower ranked side has higher win %, then this whole thread is debunked. Do a Forum search - it's everywhere .. What exactly do I search for to find data about the matchmaker intentionally outmatching you when your win rate is up. I'm on here every day and I've never seen a single thread or post saying that with facts or data involved.
|
|