|
Post by acdcfan on Jul 16, 2017 7:11:48 GMT -5
Than please explain to me why is that I got matched last night with silver league and gold league players, while opposition had a couple of champion league. I have quite a few matches like that. Drop my % down to below 50, continued playing and started winning ( collected some 40 gold in process) and got my ratio up to 56 last night when I stopped. Today I am guessing it will be loosing time to drop it down. Well, it could be that when your win rate is high, you get matched with Champions. When it is low, you don't. So did you check for Champions in your matches when you were winning? Or do you only collect data when you sense a losing streak? It could also be that sometimes you get matched with Champions and sometimes you don't. We don't understand the reason. Maybe it is time of day or day of the week. When you're matched with Champions, you lose. When you're not, you win. Then your changes in win rate are caused by the presence of Champions, but the presence of Champions is not caused by your win rate. To know the difference you need controlled data. Not anecdotes from forum complainers. If the forum were trustworthy, Firebeard would have left after posting to Happy Trails. -Amid And maybe I should start collecting data for loss/win ratio,including their league. But here is the question, why do you match me with champions? Again, it has been said and posted by war robots and pix about algorithm enforcing 50/50 win ratio. This is something mijapi300 does not want to accept Today I squaded with my mate ( mixture of diamond, gold and expert) yet we have face 3 battles with squad full of champion players, with no less then 20 ancilots. Now this has to be our bad play we have lost all 3 battles...you know we are equipped to deal with them. 2 players in my squad had only 4 robots. Go figure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 7:48:09 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. Don't know what league you play in, but where I play the most common factor in losses are dropouts, noshows and generally players with very low skill or commitment. I'd guess that the outcome of more than half solo (=non squad) matches are determined by the poorest player.
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 9:50:27 GMT -5
Well, it could be that when your win rate is high, you get matched with Champions. When it is low, you don't. So did you check for Champions in your matches when you were winning? Or do you only collect data when you sense a losing streak? It could also be that sometimes you get matched with Champions and sometimes you don't. We don't understand the reason. Maybe it is time of day or day of the week. When you're matched with Champions, you lose. When you're not, you win. Then your changes in win rate are caused by the presence of Champions, but the presence of Champions is not caused by your win rate. To know the difference you need controlled data. Not anecdotes from forum complainers. If the forum were trustworthy, Firebeard would have left after posting to Happy Trails. -Amid And maybe I should start collecting data for loss/win ratio,including their league. But here is the question, why do you match me with champions? Again, it has been said and posted by war robots and pix about algorithm enforcing 50/50 win ratio. This is something mijapi300 does not want to accept Today I squaded with my mate ( mixture of diamond, gold and expert) yet we have face 3 battles with squad full of champion players, with no less then 20 ancilots. Now this has to be our bad play we have lost all 3 battles...you know we are equipped to deal with them. 2 players in my squad had only 4 robots. Go figure From my experience squads are matched against squads, especially in full squad situation. Also mixed level squads tend to be a recipe for disaster as usually seems to match against highest level squad member.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 16, 2017 9:50:32 GMT -5
mijapi300Pixonic most definitely did state in several places that their match making algorithm is specifically designed to try and force a 50% win/loss upon its players by specific matching practices. If you missed those messages too bad. Don't expect others to do your research for you just because others let you know it has been stated here or there. Because you are then inferring that those people trying to give you the low down are just liars and trying to mislead you. I ain't got any reason to lie to you or anyone else. I don't know you or give half a gnat's f*rt about you. I'm just trying to help you understand that a great many of us here in these forums and on FaceBook have actually laid eyes on Pixonic's very own words about their little match messerupper. By your own words you stated that you knew nothing about it and that you were "assuming" something about it. Do you know what the common terminology for the word "assume" is right? It makes an 「bum-bum」 of u and me. I've only seen one post ever of Pixonic giving any sort of specifics about the MM. And that statement broke down exactly how it works, and is already posted in this thread. It starts with a certain window of League Points, and opens up from there until it fills a match. Other posts have said that the matchmaker creates a 50% win rate. Which any matchmaker that moves you up and down based on wins and losses will do. And that's already been broken down probably 7 times in this thread alone, so I'm not going to do it again. When someone posts a statement by Pixonic that supports what I've said, and the contrarians repeatedly say that they have proof and Pixonic said something directly contradictory to the statement that's been presented, but they refuse to provide that proof or statement, then yes - I am inclined to assume that they are lying. And I will gladly make an 「bum-bum」 out of you and me. I think it's pretty clear I don't care what people think about me. When people are spewing crap or trying to act like they're all that and a bag of chips, I'm going to call them out. And continue to call them out until they can back up the outrageous things they claim as fact. If you want to simply disagree and state that your opinion is different than mine, that's fine. But don't claim that you have proof that mine is wrong, if you're unable to provide the proof (maybe because it doesn't exist).
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 16, 2017 9:52:10 GMT -5
Well, it could be that when your win rate is high, you get matched with Champions. When it is low, you don't. So did you check for Champions in your matches when you were winning? Or do you only collect data when you sense a losing streak? It could also be that sometimes you get matched with Champions and sometimes you don't. We don't understand the reason. Maybe it is time of day or day of the week. When you're matched with Champions, you lose. When you're not, you win. Then your changes in win rate are caused by the presence of Champions, but the presence of Champions is not caused by your win rate. To know the difference you need controlled data. Not anecdotes from forum complainers. If the forum were trustworthy, Firebeard would have left after posting to Happy Trails. -Amid And maybe I should start collecting data for loss/win ratio,including their league. But here is the question, why do you match me with champions? Again, it has been said and posted by war robots and pix about algorithm enforcing 50/50 win ratio. This is something mijapi300 does not want to accept Today I squaded with my mate ( mixture of diamond, gold and expert) yet we have face 3 battles with squad full of champion players, with no less then 20 ancilots. Now this has to be our bad play we have lost all 3 battles...you know we are equipped to deal with them. 2 players in my squad had only 4 robots. Go figure They've specifically said their matchmaker uses league rating, not win ratio. Yet you've providing nothing to the contrary. Also, squadding uses the highest league rating in your squad. If you had an expert in your squad, it's going to match you in the pool experts are in - which is Expert-Champion.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 16, 2017 9:53:33 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. Don't know what league you play in, but where I play the most common factor in losses are dropouts, noshows and generally players with very low skill or commitment. I'd guess that the outcome of more than half solo (=non squad) matches are determined by the poorest player. And in the long run, the poorest player is on your opponent's team 50% of the time. So again, in the long run, you are the only constant.
|
|
|
Post by acdcfan on Jul 16, 2017 9:57:38 GMT -5
And maybe I should start collecting data for loss/win ratio,including their league. But here is the question, why do you match me with champions? Again, it has been said and posted by war robots and pix about algorithm enforcing 50/50 win ratio. This is something mijapi300 does not want to accept Today I squaded with my mate ( mixture of diamond, gold and expert) yet we have face 3 battles with squad full of champion players, with no less then 20 ancilots. Now this has to be our bad play we have lost all 3 battles...you know we are equipped to deal with them. 2 players in my squad had only 4 robots. Go figure From my experience squads are matched against squads, especially in full squad situation. Also mixed level squads tend to be a recipe for disaster as usually seems to match against highest level squad member. I don't mind mixed level squads, but why squad full of champion league players?
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 10:00:11 GMT -5
Don't know what league you play in, but where I play the most common factor in losses are dropouts, noshows and generally players with very low skill or commitment. I'd guess that the outcome of more than half solo (=non squad) matches are determined by the poorest player. Definitely true, but the other side of the coin here is that by the same logic, these factors are also the most common factor in wins, since they are equally likely to happen to red as they are to blue. So unless you personally are being singled out to be put on a team with dropouts, no-shows or low skill players, then it is correct that these factors are not changing your long term position, just creating more short term volatility in your results. Which is super annoying and one of the worst issues e game at the moment
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 10:03:23 GMT -5
From my experience squads are matched against squads, especially in full squad situation. Also mixed level squads tend to be a recipe for disaster as usually seems to match against highest level squad member. I don't mind mixed level squads, but why squad full of champion league players? I am not sure, it seems like it is easier to match full squad with other full squads. That I would assume is a much smaller pool and there are probably just a lot more full squads of champions playing together than mixed squads. It definitely sucks
|
|
|
Post by acdcfan on Jul 16, 2017 10:14:22 GMT -5
And maybe I should start collecting data for loss/win ratio,including their league. But here is the question, why do you match me with champions? Again, it has been said and posted by war robots and pix about algorithm enforcing 50/50 win ratio. This is something mijapi300 does not want to accept Today I squaded with my mate ( mixture of diamond, gold and expert) yet we have face 3 battles with squad full of champion players, with no less then 20 ancilots. Now this has to be our bad play we have lost all 3 battles...you know we are equipped to deal with them. 2 players in my squad had only 4 robots. Go figure They've specifically said their matchmaker uses league rating, not win ratio. Yet you've providing nothing to the contrary. Also, squadding uses the highest league rating in your squad. If you had an expert in your squad, it's going to match you in the pool experts are in - which is Expert-Champion. Still mijapi300 that does not explain full squad of champions... How did not I provide anything to the contrary. Read it again. Mixed squad , expert, diamond and gold, yet opponents full squad of champions. Once maybe, but not 3 times in the row and did not see any single player lower than champion. Yet you're still sticking to your guns, my squad ill equipped to deal with champion league players, it is all but our fault we lost correct? This almost seems you're not prepared to accept anything else, what others have said and brought up to the table, but your and your only opinion regardless of the fact. Not going to say documented facts, but in the end there are lots of people reporting. Not because they lost, but because they have been matched with a lot stronger opponents not equipped to deal with in your opinion, if we have a car and a truck on a head on collision course, and no escape routes, you will still say it was cars fault it come out worse correct? You can apply that to a motorbike vs car. Creating your opinion, and it invokes healthy discussion, you're prepare to defend it no matter how much it is stacked against you. I don't mind mixed level squads, but why squad full of champion league players? I am not sure, it seems like it is easier to match full squad with other full squads. That I would assume is a much smaller pool and there are probably just a lot more full squads of champions playing together than mixed squads. It definitely sucks It does suck,and if there is any truth in that, it only proves MM is broken.
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 11:41:34 GMT -5
I am not sure, it seems like it is easier to match full squad with other full squads. That I would assume is a much smaller pool and there are probably just a lot more full squads of champions playing together than mixed squads. It definitely sucks It does suck,and if there is any truth in that, it only proves MM is broken. Agreed, but that is a separate point from whether there is an enforced 50% win rate or not
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Jul 16, 2017 12:01:30 GMT -5
Well, it could be that when your win rate is high, you get matched with Champions. When it is low, you don't. So did you check for Champions in your matches when you were winning? Or do you only collect data when you sense a losing streak? It could also be that sometimes you get matched with Champions and sometimes you don't. We don't understand the reason. Maybe it is time of day or day of the week. When you're matched with Champions, you lose. When you're not, you win. Then your changes in win rate are caused by the presence of Champions, but the presence of Champions is not caused by your win rate. To know the difference you need controlled data. Not anecdotes from forum complainers. If the forum were trustworthy, Firebeard would have left after posting to Happy Trails. -Amid And maybe I should start collecting data for loss/win ratio,including their league. But here is the question, why do you match me with champions? Again, it has been said and posted by war robots and pix about algorithm enforcing 50/50 win ratio. This is something mijapi300 does not want to accept Today I squaded with my mate ( mixture of diamond, gold and expert) yet we have face 3 battles with squad full of champion players, with no less then 20 ancilots. Now this has to be our bad play we have lost all 3 battles...you know we are equipped to deal with them. 2 players in my squad had only 4 robots. Go figure I am Expert 2. Even as Expert 3, I was routinely match against Champions as a random. From what I read that is happening to Diamond players now too. If I play solo, there are usually a similar number of Champs, Masters, and Experts on each team, but that can be imbalanced. The only tine I see things grossly imbalanced is with squads. I see diamond or gold players in squads when their squad also includes a higher level player. And when I squad with Expert and Diamond clanmates, we have fewer Champs on blue. To me it looks like that's because we are taking up slots that could have gone to Champs on our side. Also, when I squad, I am much more likely to get matched against a squad of 5 or 6 champs on the other side. It is clear that squadding in mid-level leagues is currently broken with this MM. All that said, I have not observed the number of Champs on the other team to correlate with my win rate. I see them when I'm high and when I'm low. I don't have hard data that this happens, so I could be wrong. I'd need hard data to conclude the opposite, though. -Amid
|
|
|
Post by amidf on Jul 16, 2017 12:05:29 GMT -5
mijapi300Pixonic most definitely did state in several places that their match making algorithm is specifically designed to try and force a 50% win/loss upon its players by specific matching practices. If you missed those messages too bad. Don't expect others to do your research for you just because others let you know it has been stated here or there. Because you are then inferring that those people trying to give you the low down are just liars and trying to mislead you. I ain't got any reason to lie to you or anyone else. I don't know you or give half a gnat's f*rt about you. I'm just trying to help you understand that a great many of us here in these forums and on FaceBook have actually laid eyes on Pixonic's very own words about their little match messerupper. By your own words you stated that you knew nothing about it and that you were "assuming" something about it. Do you know what the common terminology for the word "assume" is right? It makes an 「bum-bum」 of u and me. I strongly suspect you have misinterpreted Pixonic's words because I have not seen them say the MM is based on anything other than league points. As has been discussed to death, that will tend to push people toward 50% wins but in reality it is more complicated due to the way league points are awarded. If you do heavy damage your win rate will tend to be lower. I can guarantee you that the average win rate across all active players is 50% . Since you won't show us where Pixonic said something other than league points and squads are used for MM, I'll just use my best judgement and conclude tentatively that you don't know what you're writing about. -Amid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 13:58:45 GMT -5
Don't know what league you play in, but where I play the most common factor in losses are dropouts, noshows and generally players with very low skill or commitment. I'd guess that the outcome of more than half solo (=non squad) matches are determined by the poorest player. And in the long run, the poorest player is on your opponent's team 50% of the time. So again, in the long run, you are the only constant.No, see this is you making an assumption that the teams are divided evenly. Which is a reasonable assumption. But it doesn't seem to be true.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 16, 2017 15:23:52 GMT -5
And in the long run, the poorest player is on your opponent's team 50% of the time. So again, in the long run, you are the only constant.No, see this is you making an assumption that the teams are divided evenly. Which is a reasonable assumption. But it doesn't seem to be true. It is a very reasonable assumption, given that the only "evidence" to the contrary is people saying "I lost because of MM, not myself". To anyone that thinks MM is cheating them, feel free to feel that way. Meanwhile, I'm going to look at my own game, figure out what I need to work on, and get better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 15:51:32 GMT -5
No, see this is you making an assumption that the teams are divided evenly. Which is a reasonable assumption. But it doesn't seem to be true. It is a very reasonable assumption, given that the only "evidence" to the contrary is people saying "I lost because of MM, not myself". To anyone that thinks MM is cheating them, feel free to feel that way. Meanwhile, I'm going to look at my own game, figure out what I need to work on, and get better. Ok, I'll take screenshots of my next solo games. Every single one. Not sure how many, but let's say 50 for a start. Then I'll show you what people are complaining about.
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 16:12:06 GMT -5
It is a very reasonable assumption, given that the only "evidence" to the contrary is people saying "I lost because of MM, not myself". To anyone that thinks MM is cheating them, feel free to feel that way. Meanwhile, I'm going to look at my own game, figure out what I need to work on, and get better. Ok, I'll take screenshots of my next solo games. Every single one. Not sure how many, but let's say 50 for a start. Then I'll show you what people are complaining about. Right, but I think the problem here is we all agree that matchmaker is throwing us up crappy matches far too often, so your observations will at best support what we can all see, but what they will not do is give us any more evidence as to the causation. The discussion here comes down to: is the cause of that volatility either: a) a random walk driven by abnormal player behaviour plus poorly functioning matchmaker; or b) an algorithmically enforced 50% win rate (regardless of skill or league standing) designed by Pixonic for whatever reason
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jul 16, 2017 18:45:09 GMT -5
There is a lot here to unpack, so lets start with this: 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%. No War Robots is not Elo. Elo like yes, but not Elo. We have all of the problems of ELO and a host of other issues relating to balancing teams and power. When pix switched to winner take all scoring I went built a model and predicted that we would get something similar to the launch points distribution back (and we have that now). However the system we have today is a bit more complicated than "just points". 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. I would normally agree with you but the leavers queue has been off for a while. I don't know the reason but folks who love it over there can't seem to get back in. 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. Silver facing diamond is the new normal. It isn't a good normal but it is the new normal. However you can control this more than you think. I know you can because I can easily shift my win rate and do quite often, assuming you have the bots to do so. 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 .. You have conflated an outcome, that you will settle at about 50% with intent. The math behind the system results in this outcome till you get to the top, there you can change it but not until then. The best you can hope for is a 70% win rate sustained (thats what the math says). However recent changes to MM make doing that hard. 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. No. You can model this yourself. The points change is a reaction to the system failing to sort on power appropriately. The decoupling from league standing is incidental and was corrected with broader team composition. Pixonic most definitely did state in several places that their match making algorithm is specifically designed to try and force a 50% win/loss upon its players by specific matching practices. I would love this link if you know where it is.
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."Pixonic does not have anything coded into the MM system that specifically targets and picks on individual players. " There is no function in the system that says ScheduleBeadown(player_name) - so you are correct in saying that there isn't an explicit system, built as a designed feature with this intent. Will the system push you into harder or easier matches based on your win rate? Yes, this is a product of the ELO like system we have, it is actually designed this way. Losses or wins will change your league score and push you in one direction or another. Simply put your win rate is a byproduct of the system, not a factor in it. However the outcome sure does make it FEEL like pix is out to get you. To some extent this is true, they don't want you to find a happy place till you have invested the time, OR the money to be at the top where they CANT skew the outcome any more. Where skill is the biggest factor in the result because all the power levels are the same. The old days of gepard clubbing where bad for the bottom line. You could grind your gold for big purchases easily and do it with the blessing of pix itself, leagues got rid of this, and left the clubbers more overt aveneues to accomplishing the same thing. I don't think pix realized how bad the problem was going to be till the system was live. > Now, to the rant. You are the reason your win rate sucks. You. And only you. Not one single other person. Here again, your not wrong, but you aren't right either. The variance in your win rate is a product of where you are in leagues, and how you choose to play. You can choose to manipulate your league score and therefore your win rate as a product of that. You can NOT play the meta, and expect to be a winner till you have a 12/12 hanger and only play in squads of fellow champs. You can ignore the meta, ignore the play style most people follow and expect wins and gold! There is a way I have found it and so have a few others. You can NOT play the meta and expect this outcome. Are you wrong? No. But you aren't right either. Thankfully this is in rants because there isn't enough logic or reason or insight for it to be in general discussion.
|
|
|
Post by poddington on Jul 16, 2017 20:27:07 GMT -5
Experts are fed to champ squads regularly. How is it fun for either team?
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 21:58:08 GMT -5
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. No. You can model this yourself. The points change is a reaction to the system failing to sort on power appropriately. The decoupling from league standing is incidental and was corrected with broader team composition. I am not sure what you are modelling here? What factors are you including? Did you model the impact of leavers, uneven team distributions, etc? how about player population? What skill pyramid? What activity levels? etc. Going beyond the simple maths of it would seem like you need to nest a very large number of assumptions to come to conclusions of the real world results of a theoretical points distribution. Anyway, the explanation from Pixonic was: Why? With new distribution we tried to enforce “be a good team player to go higher” idea before introducing proper communication tools to foster teamwork — and it didn’t quite work out. Most people basically stopped moving between divisions, being stuck in one place. Previous distribution did much better job in splitting differently tiered pilots between their respective leagues.The inference here being that in the points distribution system where only winners received positive points, the inability to sufficiently influence win rates, caused by the poor matches delivered (either through poor implementation on their part or abnormal player activity) meant players could not advance up the league system and also poor players didn't filter down quickly. Therefore they reintroduced the points for first losers. If the initial sorting was able to fairly accurately assign players across leagues, all players entered matches and played to the best of their abilities (no leavers, tankers, etc) and the matchmaker functioned efficiently so that it was able to quickly pair players with teams and opponents within a narrow band so that both sides were close to equal in league points, then the winner points only system would have been ok since a relatively better player (or hangar) for given league points should be able to influence their teams' win rate (and hence their own league standing). However, since the factors out of an individual players control are contriving to give them limited control over their own win rate, Pixonic rerturned to the original model of positive league points for top winners. We have an imperfect points system as a direct result of the shortfalls of the matchmaking system (including within this player related issues like tanking).
|
|
|
Post by WilsonK on Jul 16, 2017 22:18:10 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. Hell yes to this Mijapi, boggers going off complaining of always losing etc... remember the other thread where someone lost twenty times in a row? The joke's really on themselves... Also, not to mention those that just camps and snipes, if your team is busy fending off reds from beacons while the other end of the map is open, mech out of your sniper and get those red beacons!! Contribute!! And not sit there waiting for a miracle to happen!
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 16, 2017 22:22:26 GMT -5
While doing research on things that Pixonic has actually said, it seems there is a squad specific approach to matchmaking:
Squads are whole another story. It’s obvious that squadded players are much more efficient at achieving their goals than solo players, so matching them against each other should be a big no-no. So next step will be a revision of squad matchmaking rules to ensure that, say, 4-pilot squad is facing a 4-pilot squad, or 3/5 at worst with rating taken into account — everything will be announced in due time.
But for pure comedy value I think this is the best quote I can find:
With the new League interface you can see explicitly which bracket you’re playing in and what kind of opponents the game picks for you. It should eliminate most questions about the inner workings of the system, since everything is on display now.
|
|
|
Post by mijapi300 on Jul 16, 2017 23:32:00 GMT -5
While doing research on things that Pixonic has actually said, it seems there is a squad specific approach to matchmaking: Squads are whole another story. It’s obvious that squadded players are much more efficient at achieving their goals than solo players, so matching them against each other should be a big no-no. So next step will be a revision of squad matchmaking rules to ensure that, say, 4-pilot squad is facing a 4-pilot squad, or 3/5 at worst with rating taken into account — everything will be announced in due time. But for pure comedy value I think this is the best quote I can find: With the new League interface you can see explicitly which bracket you’re playing in and what kind of opponents the game picks for you. It should eliminate most questions about the inner workings of the system, since everything is on display now.It's okay moses. I'm sure there's "proof" somewhere that contradicts this, it's just that nobody can find it at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Jul 17, 2017 0:32:56 GMT -5
You're asking for a link to Pixonic stating that the MM is rigged, is what you're asking for. No one has that and you use that presumption as basis for your argument: "Prove it!" is what you say. Well, we have emperical data collected by Players and observed by the majority of Players to be correct and accurate. You completely omit all of it. Again, there actually No Scientific Evidence of the Earth being 4.5B years old, only Observation and data collected from various sources, compiled to form a Scientific Theory. All Geologists have is: Empirical Data .. No, I am asking for the data you keep referencing. And who are "we", and how did you gather the empirical observations of the majority of players? Again, I haven't seen a single thread or post claiming what you're claiming until you said it. Feel free to provide links or evidence. I'm asking for nothing from Pixonic. The only thing we have from Pixonic is specifically stating that the MM doesn't work the way you're claiming. Straight from their statement, it goes strictly off league points. As far as the age of Earth goes, we have carbon dating. As far as your constant use of the term empirical data, here's some reading: perbylund.com/2008/08/why-empirical-research-isnt-scientific/Carbon Dating only works to about 50,000 years back in time. after that accuracy starts falling drastically and carbon dating becomes highly unreliable past 100,000 years back. the best evidence for the age of the earth is from war robots. you set up a fresh account and press the to battle button 1 billion times (to remove statistical fluctuations) and quit 40 secs in. you will find that your win average will be sitting on 38% despite; not playing a single game and irrespective of your skills/ bots/weapons/levelling/teams involved ……
now for the age of the earth. Go to pixo’s web site for reference pixonic.com/en/posts/337
formula for the age of the earth = (((destroyed robot height) / (one way trips to the moon) x (one way trips to mars)) – (Loss percentage – Win percentage))) x 1 Billion
That all equals to 4.5Billion years. Its spot on! That also means the win loss ratio is correct which in turn disproves your original assumption.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jul 17, 2017 0:39:15 GMT -5
No. You can model this yourself. The points change is a reaction to the system failing to sort on power appropriately. The decoupling from league standing is incidental and was corrected with broader team composition. I am not sure what you are modelling here? What factors are you including? Did you model the impact of leavers, uneven team distributions, etc? how about player population? What skill pyramid? What activity levels? etc. Going beyond the simple maths of it would seem like you need to nest a very large number of assumptions to come to conclusions of the real world results of a theoretical points distribution. Anyway, the explanation from Pixonic was: Why? With new distribution we tried to enforce “be a good team player to go higher” idea before introducing proper communication tools to foster teamwork — and it didn’t quite work out. Most people basically stopped moving between divisions, being stuck in one place. Previous distribution did much better job in splitting differently tiered pilots between their respective leagues.The inference here being that in the points distribution system where only winners received positive points, the inability to sufficiently influence win rates, caused by the poor matches delivered (either through poor implementation on their part or abnormal player activity) meant players could not advance up the league system and also poor players didn't filter down quickly. Therefore they reintroduced the points for first losers. If the initial sorting was able to fairly accurately assign players across leagues, all players entered matches and played to the best of their abilities (no leavers, tankers, etc) and the matchmaker functioned efficiently so that it was able to quickly pair players with teams and opponents within a narrow band so that both sides were close to equal in league points, then the winner points only system would have been ok since a relatively better player (or hangar) for given league points should be able to influence their teams' win rate (and hence their own league standing). However, since the factors out of an individual players control are contriving to give them limited control over their own win rate, Pixonic rerturned to the original model of positive league points for top winners. We have an imperfect points system as a direct result of the shortfalls of the matchmaking system (including within this player related issues like tanking). This has been a tough post to respond to. You have all the right ideas, and the right sets of thinking, but your applying them in the wrong direction and missing key facts. Let me pick out the two most salient points that your making and try to re-hone your thinking around those. "players could not advance up the league system and also poor players didn't filter down quickly" "since a relatively better player (or hangar) for given league points should be able to influence their teams' win " The problem was that poor players WERE filtering down! They were filtering down to the point that their hanger (Power) became a proxy for their lack of skill. If you look at the winner take all points distribution, the windows for advancement were VERY narrow. You needed to not only win more than %50 you needed to finish in the top spots more often than not. Our hypothetical bad player falls down and ties up those top spots, making it harder for everyone else to advance. They wreck not only the games they win, but tip the balance in strange ways for the games they loose. Because of their outsized contributions (damage) they could randomly swing the game in an unexpected and very unpredictable direction. The goal of our current system is to lean heavily into power sorting. If you are a powerful player but can not win your going to move up! With these players no longer roadblocking others, there was a massive wave of advancement in the system, and most players shot up 2-3 league levels almost overnight. You can model this without accounting for all the other issues that you suggested should be in a "full" model! You can use pure math to simulate how powerful players impact points distribution for everyone around them. You need surprisingly FEW of them to cause major issues for your entire system, their impact, much like a ripple hits everyone that they play with and against!
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 17, 2017 1:29:12 GMT -5
I am not sure what you are modelling here? What factors are you including? Did you model the impact of leavers, uneven team distributions, etc? how about player population? What skill pyramid? What activity levels? etc. Going beyond the simple maths of it would seem like you need to nest a very large number of assumptions to come to conclusions of the real world results of a theoretical points distribution. Anyway, the explanation from Pixonic was: Why? With new distribution we tried to enforce “be a good team player to go higher” idea before introducing proper communication tools to foster teamwork — and it didn’t quite work out. Most people basically stopped moving between divisions, being stuck in one place. Previous distribution did much better job in splitting differently tiered pilots between their respective leagues.The inference here being that in the points distribution system where only winners received positive points, the inability to sufficiently influence win rates, caused by the poor matches delivered (either through poor implementation on their part or abnormal player activity) meant players could not advance up the league system and also poor players didn't filter down quickly. Therefore they reintroduced the points for first losers. If the initial sorting was able to fairly accurately assign players across leagues, all players entered matches and played to the best of their abilities (no leavers, tankers, etc) and the matchmaker functioned efficiently so that it was able to quickly pair players with teams and opponents within a narrow band so that both sides were close to equal in league points, then the winner points only system would have been ok since a relatively better player (or hangar) for given league points should be able to influence their teams' win rate (and hence their own league standing). However, since the factors out of an individual players control are contriving to give them limited control over their own win rate, Pixonic rerturned to the original model of positive league points for top winners. We have an imperfect points system as a direct result of the shortfalls of the matchmaking system (including within this player related issues like tanking). This has been a tough post to respond to. You have all the right ideas, and the right sets of thinking, but your applying them in the wrong direction and missing key facts. Let me pick out the two most salient points that your making and try to re-hone your thinking around those. "players could not advance up the league system and also poor players didn't filter down quickly" "since a relatively better player (or hangar) for given league points should be able to influence their teams' win " The problem was that poor players WERE filtering down! They were filtering down to the point that their hanger (Power) became a proxy for their lack of skill. If you look at the winner take all points distribution, the windows for advancement were VERY narrow. You needed to not only win more than %50 you needed to finish in the top spots more often than not. Our hypothetical bad player falls down and ties up those top spots, making it harder for everyone else to advance. They wreck not only the games they win, but tip the balance in strange ways for the games they loose. Because of their outsized contributions (damage) they could randomly swing the game in an unexpected and very unpredictable direction. The goal of our current system is to lean heavily into power sorting. If you are a powerful player but can not win your going to move up! With these players no longer roadblocking others, there was a massive wave of advancement in the system, and most players shot up 2-3 league levels almost overnight. You can model this without accounting for all the other issues that you suggested should be in a "full" model! You can use pure math to simulate how powerful players impact points distribution for everyone around them. You need surprisingly FEW of them to cause major issues for your entire system, their impact, much like a ripple hits everyone that they play with and against! So your assertion is that with a highly simplified model you can demonstrate that the rationale for going back from the winner takes all distribution to the original points system was not, as Pixonic stated: - most people basically stopped moving up or down in league points, in large part due to the fact the cooperation between team mates required in order to advance in a winner takes all system was not present But rather to fix this second problem as identified by your modelling exercise, which if I am reading you right is: - under a winner takes all system poor players with strong hangars fell down from higher leagues in such great numbers that it made game play impossible / unpredictable for the players already in those lower leagues? If you have posted the results of this analysis would be interested to read. I presume it takes into account the spread of league points and positions after initial sorting then x weeks of the original system and a further Y weeks of the winner takes all system and obviously the pyramid of player population up through the leagues and skill and hanger power curves?
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jul 17, 2017 2:11:01 GMT -5
Every time I load up with ECU bots and go beacon hunting only I find that I rise through the rankings. I've made Gold 1 four times doing this. It takes a while to be sure since my cup count is always the lowest with the wins and highest with the losses. But my win/loss also goes up and stays over 60% as well. It once got to 80%. There is no power in an ECU only hanger. You can't do any damage at all. And when I do this the average number of beacons taken by me in a match is just 2. That's the average number of beacons taken by me per match in sets of 100 matches. My personal best is 14 on the Moon.
When my bots are armed however I almost never get more than 4 beacons because I'm always distracted with combat. But if I press it I can easily get 2 beacons on average while armed through 100 matches. Done that twice and it wasn't that difficult. But my win/loss drops into the low 40% and high 30% ranges and stays there while I'm riding mid-range on the end match scale on average finishing 3-4 on average Thereby I find myself dropping back down the ladder rather quickly in comparison to the unarmed climb.
Someone explain how and unarmed hanger getting an average of just 2 beacons per match through 100 matches can get ranked into Gold 1 while an armed hanger getting the same number of beacons on average over the same number of matches can lose rankings faster than the unarmed one gained them while finishing in the middle on average.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jul 17, 2017 3:12:11 GMT -5
So your assertion is that with a highly simplified model you can demonstrate that the rationale for going back from the winner takes all distribution to the original points system was not, as Pixonic stated: - most people basically stopped moving up or down in league points, in large part due to the fact the cooperation between team mates required in order to advance in a winner takes all system was not present But rather to fix this second problem as identified by your modelling exercise, which if I am reading you right is: - under a winner takes all system poor players with strong hangars fell down from higher leagues in such great numbers that it made game play impossible / unpredictable for the players already in those lower leagues? If you have posted the results of this analysis would be interested to read. I presume it takes into account the spread of league points and positions after initial sorting then x weeks of the original system and a further Y weeks of the winner takes all system and obviously the pyramid of player population up through the leagues and skill and hanger power curves? So your assertion is that with a highly simplified model you can demonstrate that the rationale for going back from the winner takes all distribution to the original points system was not, as Pixonic stated: Yes, you can model it to, not hard to do at all. > most people basically stopped moving up or down in league points, in large part due to the fact the cooperation between team mates required in order to advance in a winner takes all system was not present This is what pix states: "Why? With new distribution we tried to enforce “be a good team player to go higher” idea before introducing proper communication tools to foster teamwork — and it didn’t quite work out. Most people basically stopped moving between divisions, being stuck in one place. Previous distribution did much better job in splitting differently tiered pilots between their respective leagues." They had a theory, it didn't work. The communication factor is pure speculation on their part, and because it is being applied to both side, won't change the outcome as it isn't compensating in favor of the poor player. It also doesn't make any sense with the points distribution setup they had. An equal number to all winners and losers (gain and loss) would have said "teamwork" the fact that they took placement into consideration says "power is still important"! Im not disagreeing with WHY pix did it or the result. The excuse they gave is just that, an excuse, one that doesn't fit with the game we all play or the actions they took! > under a winner takes all system poor players with strong hangars fell down from higher leagues in such great numbers that it made game play impossible / unpredictable for the players already in those lower leagues? Were talking about two concepts here that interplay in a very interesting way. Again you can model these yourself if you so desire but the logical explanation should be enough. Lets take a bad player we all love to hate, the habitual sniper. You know the type too well. the one who misses the beacons bar and just stands at their post shooting in the same bot for 3/4ths of the match. In a system where "winner takes all" they are at a disadvantage not only on behavior (ignores beacons) but on map distribution (we have more short range maps than long). They are only bound to slip down. It isn't an argument of if they do it is what happens when they do? When they hit the right maps they are taking top damage spots, and the wrong ones leave them a bot short and well out of those top slots, but still doing high damage. Because they finish well based on power in a win, they are further incented to continue this behavior because they get a cookie for it (gold). This is but one example of the several ways you can fall into the trap of power as a proxy for skill... slots, bot selection (at the hanger screen) how your bots are armed (are you ignoring the meta) will all play out in similar ways. I can speculate that those with underpowered hardware would fall into this trap as well! However we have only covered 1/2 of your issue, because your suggesting it would take a "great number" of players to jam up the system. I grant you that this is the intuitive answer, it would also be the wrong one. By consistently finishing near the top, but not winning they have a knock on effect to every single one of the other players on the field! Ten games a day by this individual has the potential to impact 110 other players. Once who have won or lost based more on the actions of a single individual than their own! The knock on effect of this displacement spreads it out to 1100 people impacted.... The odds are that our original 110 players are going to run into someone else who has been impacted by this sort of player as well. It would be hard NOT to find a 2nd bad player out of 1100, never mind a 3rd or a 4th. Even if one of our 110 doesn't directly run across another bad player the odds are that they WILL find someone who has been displaced or impacted by one in this group. The network effects of a small number of bad players can be pervasive, and hard to get around. It only takes %0.5 of the player base being terrible to have everyone either being impacted or likely feeling secondary effects of their behavior! A very small population of bad actors can have sustained and dramatic impact on the system, %0.2 would impact almost every game played! >If you have posted the results of this analysis would be interested to read. I presume it takes into account the spread of league points and positions after initial sorting then x weeks of the original system and a further Y weeks of the winner takes all system and obviously the pyramid of player population up through the leagues and skill and hanger power curves? I built a Monty Carlo model of silver on android while back, looking at 4 slots vs 5 and how power factors there were impacting leagues under the old points distribution. You do not need to do any of this! Basic math, and some small bit of logic/reason will bring you to the same conclusion. If you want you can model the old system in excel if you want to spend the day doing it or in the scripting language of your choice in 1/2 a day. You have to make several concessions in your model because you lack sufficient data, and it falls into the "is not worth it category" mostly around injecting points into the system to keep it going as you move players further apart and want to continue matching them.
|
|
|
Post by zer00eyz on Jul 17, 2017 3:29:40 GMT -5
Every time I load up with ECU bots and go beacon hunting only I find that I rise through the rankings. I've made Gold 1 four times doing this. It takes a while to be sure since my cup count is always the lowest with the wins and highest with the losses. But my win/loss also goes up and stays over 60% as well. It once got to 80%. There is no power in an ECU only hanger. You can't do any damage at all. And when I do this the average number of beacons taken by me in a match is just 2. That's the average number of beacons taken by me per match in sets of 100 matches. My personal best is 14 on the Moon. When my bots are armed however I almost never get more than 4 beacons because I'm always distracted with combat. But if I press it I can easily get 2 beacons on average while armed through 100 matches. Done that twice and it wasn't that difficult. But my win/loss drops into the low 40% and high 30% ranges and stays there while I'm riding mid-range on the end match scale on average finishing 3-4 on average Thereby I find myself dropping back down the ladder rather quickly in comparison to the unarmed climb. Someone explain how and unarmed hanger getting an average of just 2 beacons per match through 100 matches can get ranked into Gold 1 while an armed hanger getting the same number of beacons on average over the same number of matches can lose rankings faster than the unarmed one gained them while finishing in the middle on average. Your missing a few key points: - Are you using the same bots? I bet you aren't and speed isn't being accounted for!
- If you are using the same bots have you tried doing the same task armed but not shooting, I bet you aren't! People tend to look at what is shooting at them and shoot back.
- Distracted by combat is a big deal. Even in larger slower bots, go for the beacons you would if you were in an ECU. If speed is the same then the count should be the same.
How can it happen? Because capping wins games, and capping un-occupied beacons really does. Your pulling a red off of the fight to go fix the problem you made by flipping some remote beacon, and opening up a door to cap another.
I run 5 armed lights and can tell you that my high win rate is because I am always looking for a beacon to grab! Damage and killing are incidental and secondary!
|
|
|
Post by moses on Jul 17, 2017 3:35:05 GMT -5
So your assertion is that with a highly simplified model you can demonstrate that the rationale for going back from the winner takes all distribution to the original points system was not, as Pixonic stated: - most people basically stopped moving up or down in league points, in large part due to the fact the cooperation between team mates required in order to advance in a winner takes all system was not present But rather to fix this second problem as identified by your modelling exercise, which if I am reading you right is: - under a winner takes all system poor players with strong hangars fell down from higher leagues in such great numbers that it made game play impossible / unpredictable for the players already in those lower leagues? If you have posted the results of this analysis would be interested to read. I presume it takes into account the spread of league points and positions after initial sorting then x weeks of the original system and a further Y weeks of the winner takes all system and obviously the pyramid of player population up through the leagues and skill and hanger power curves? So your assertion is that with a highly simplified model you can demonstrate that the rationale for going back from the winner takes all distribution to the original points system was not, as Pixonic stated: Yes, you can model it to, not hard to do at all. > most people basically stopped moving up or down in league points, in large part due to the fact the cooperation between team mates required in order to advance in a winner takes all system was not present This is what pix states: "Why? With new distribution we tried to enforce “be a good team player to go higher” idea before introducing proper communication tools to foster teamwork — and it didn’t quite work out. Most people basically stopped moving between divisions, being stuck in one place. Previous distribution did much better job in splitting differently tiered pilots between their respective leagues." They had a theory, it didn't work. The communication factor is pure speculation on their part, and because it is being applied to both side, won't change the outcome as it isn't compensating in favor of the poor player. It also doesn't make any sense with the points distribution setup they had. An equal number to all winners and losers (gain and loss) would have said "teamwork" the fact that they took placement into consideration says "power is still important"! Im not disagreeing with WHY pix did it or the result. The excuse they gave is just that, an excuse, one that doesn't fit with the game we all play or the actions they took! > under a winner takes all system poor players with strong hangars fell down from higher leagues in such great numbers that it made game play impossible / unpredictable for the players already in those lower leagues? Were talking about two concepts here that interplay in a very interesting way. Again you can model these yourself if you so desire but the logical explanation should be enough. Lets take a bad player we all love to hate, the habitual sniper. You know the type too well. the one who misses the beacons bar and just stands at their post shooting in the same bot for 3/4ths of the match. In a system where "winner takes all" they are at a disadvantage not only on behavior (ignores beacons) but on map distribution (we have more short range maps than long). They are only bound to slip down. It isn't an argument of if they do it is what happens when they do? When they hit the right maps they are taking top damage spots, and the wrong ones leave them a bot short and well out of those top slots, but still doing high damage. Because they finish well based on power in a win, they are further incented to continue this behavior because they get a cookie for it (gold). This is but one example of the several ways you can fall into the trap of power as a proxy for skill... slots, bot selection (at the hanger screen) how your bots are armed (are you ignoring the meta) will all play out in similar ways. I can speculate that those with underpowered hardware would fall into this trap as well! However we have only covered 1/2 of your issue, because your suggesting it would take a "great number" of players to jam up the system. I grant you that this is the intuitive answer, it would also be the wrong one. By consistently finishing near the top, but not winning they have a knock on effect to every single one of the other players on the field! Ten games a day by this individual has the potential to impact 110 other players. Once who have won or lost based more on the actions of a single individual than their own! The knock on effect of this displacement spreads it out to 1100 people impacted.... The odds are that our original 110 players are going to run into someone else who has been impacted by this sort of player as well. It would be hard NOT to find a 2nd bad player out of 1100, never mind a 3rd or a 4th. Even if one of our 110 doesn't directly run across another bad player the odds are that they WILL find someone who has been displaced or impacted by one in this group. The network effects of a small number of bad players can be pervasive, and hard to get around. It only takes %0.5 of the player base being terrible to have everyone either being impacted or likely feeling secondary effects of their behavior! A very small population of bad actors can have sustained and dramatic impact on the system, %0.2 would impact almost every game played! >If you have posted the results of this analysis would be interested to read. I presume it takes into account the spread of league points and positions after initial sorting then x weeks of the original system and a further Y weeks of the winner takes all system and obviously the pyramid of player population up through the leagues and skill and hanger power curves? I built a Monty Carlo model of silver on android while back, looking at 4 slots vs 5 and how power factors there were impacting leagues under the old points distribution. You do not need to do any of this! Basic math, and some small bit of logic/reason will bring you to the same conclusion. If you want you can model the old system in excel if you want to spend the day doing it or in the scripting language of your choice in 1/2 a day. You have to make several concessions in your model because you lack sufficient data, and it falls into the "is not worth it category" mostly around injecting points into the system to keep it going as you move players further apart and want to continue matching them. So in conclusion, you have not model this and you are making a significant assumptions and insisting that "basic math" will prove you right.... Basic mathematical operators are of course all you need to model, but the output of any model is meaningless if the assumptions upon which it's built are flawed. Garbage in = garbage out.
|
|