I've discovered a simple truth at World of Warships

[Darth_Aubie]

It's a glorified dice game. It's quite obvious that, just like World of Tanks, success in this game is largely determined by the whim of RNG (Random Number Generator). And the sad part of it, any blind fool can tell it's not actually random. One battle all your salvos are tight, hit, and do good damage. Shots that hit you, do little damage or moderate damage at best. Those battles are almost always wins. Other battles your salvos land everywhere except on your target and those shells that do hit do little damage while salvos at you repeatedly cause catastrophic damage. It's a fun game and could be a great game. But as it stands now, just like World of Tanks it's no better than a glorified dice game. 

[_Sarcasticat_]

I've figured out a simple truth:

 

People like you waste time with these things that gets no one anywhere, gathering people who either agree or disagree, starting nothing but arguments and making no one very happy. 

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

If it were someone would've done the math and figured it all out by now..

[Unabletony]

^Strix

 

Every game is random. You can't control it.

[ChairInABasket]

:spudemoticon::spudemoticon::spudemoticon:

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

^Strix

 

Every game is random. You can't control it.

 

Heh heh heh. I made you edit your post.

[Rolkatsuki]

So what you want every ship to have deadly accurate guns with no rng to them? Can you imagine how quick matches and the number of devastating strikes there will be especially? Do you want the 2ndaries on both BBs and cruisers to be accurate too? Do you want bombers from CVs to have no rng to them when they drop their bombs too. I don't think anyone would use a DD anymore if all guns have no rng to their dispersion... 

[Unabletony]

 

Heh heh heh. I made you edit your post.

 

N-Not funny :v

[Rhal_]

It's a glorified dice game. It's quite obvious that, just like World of Tanks, success in this game is largely determined by the whim of RNG (Random Number Generator). And the sad part of it, any blind fool can tell it's not actually random. One battle all your salvos are tight, hit, and do good damage. Shots that hit you, do little damage or moderate damage at best. Those battles are almost always wins. Other battles your salvos land everywhere except on your target and those shells that do hit do little damage while salvos at you repeatedly cause catastrophic damage. It's a fun game and could be a great game. But as it stands now, just like World of Tanks it's no better than a glorified dice game. 

 

Since "any blind fool can tell it's not actually random," I'll assume you're going to share your rigorous statistical analysis which supports your hypothesis in a follow up post.

[jimpat2]

I have had days like that.  can't miss, can't hit.  u usually know the winning team by the first shot or hit.  if u get a catastrophic hit, winning team,  shotgun salvo with no damage.....lose

 

btw,  there is no true random on computers

 

[ChairInABasket]

I can't see where the downvote option is next to the upvote any more. Can someone tell me how to enable it? or at least take away the +1 i gave this guy by mistake.

[anonym_OlK73e329bMY]

 

Since "any blind fool can tell it's not actually random," I'll assume you're going to share your rigorous statistical analysis which supports your hypothesis in a follow up post.

 

Exactly. If it were obvious it would've been shown by someone at some point.

[Smeggles]

I think OP is tinfoil hatting a bit.  But allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

 

Proving non-randomness is virtually impossible when so many variables are not understood and (in practical terms) impossible to quantify.  For example - how do you quantify shell spread?  How could one measure how much dispersion they're actually getting inside an actual match?  You can't, right?  If there were fudgery, would you even know it?  "Rng is rng" is a pretty well-accepted excuse that might be easy to hide a few tricks behind.

By a similar token can you really be sure MM isn't stacking teams the same way shady casinos stack odds?  Maybe your ideal strategy is to throw a player on an n game losing streak a bone - manipulate outcomes (as well as you can) in order to keep him under his irritation threshold so he keeps playing.  (Casinos these days can and do monitor when someone is on a losing streak, and can and do intervene to make sure they win something so they keep playing - they're open about it).  Let's say WG was doing this.  How would you ever know?  Has anyone ever tested it?  If anyone did, would you believe them if the null hypothesis couldn't be proven?

 

Could you (in practical terms) prove WG was, say, rewarding people who spent money on the shop recently by secretly giving them more favorable matchmaking for (arbitrary number) games?  Some kind of pavlovian trick - reward the money spender and they spend money again soon, maybe? The sample sizes needed to prove this hypothetical to a meaningful margin of error with more than dismissable statistical power would be outlandish given the population.  And that's before we even mention the amount of money you'd need to spend assuming you could amass enough (randomly selected) volunteers.  It'd certainly be possible to get a conclusion but the community effort required to get enough statistical power to be meaningful would be herculean.

 

So my (devil's advocate) point is - you should not rely that "rng is rng" as an axiom when you cannot lift the veil and observe all the moving parts (especially when there's money invovled).  People love to shout down skeptics of supposed rng-fairness as tinfoil hatters (the irony here is not lost on me), but "rng is rng" is nothing better than a faith-based argument; If the rng were actually stacked, we would probably have no idea and no realistic way to prove it.

 

That said, I doubt they'd bother messing with shell dispersion.  If they did anything, they'd find sneaky ways to make people spend more money in the shop.

[Kapitan_Wuff]

[GhostSwordsman]

I can't see where the downvote option is next to the upvote any more. Can someone tell me how to enable it? or at least take away the +1 i gave this guy by mistake.

 

Just use this:

 

Plenty of downvote gifs to choose from!

 

Like this one:

[TheOssifrage]

I think you need to replace your tinfoil hat with some uranium shields. Unlike WoT, where penetration, shell dispersion and damage are all ruled by random numbers (to a degree), the only RNG in WoWS is where the shell lands within the dispersion x sigma circle. That doesn't stop me from missing or getting overpens if I aim poorly, or citadels and multiple penetrations if I aim well. German battleships have poor accuracy so if that's what you're playing I can understand your frustration, but keep the salt out. Very little of your success depends on random numbers in this game.

[bassmasta76]

I have had days like that.  can't miss, can't hit.  u usually know the winning team by the first shot or hit.  if u get a catastrophic hit, winning team,  shotgun salvo with no damage.....lose

 

btw,  there is no true random on computers

 

So very true.  Today is one of those days...  so close to uninstalling and finding a new addiction hobby...  tomorrow is another day, but I feel a break coming on.

 

B

[grumpymunky]

 

Since "any blind fool can tell it's not actually random," I'll assume you're going to share your rigorous statistical analysis which supports your hypothesis in a follow up post.

 

He has this one friend who is actually a blind fool...

[khan1670]

Enters thread...checks OP stats.....exits thread

[Super_S1X]

This guy made this same thread almost verbatim back in August of 2015. Anyone else notice a rash of accounts with only 1 or 2 posts, making standard shitter threads and then never posting again?

[VGLance]

Made this post for people like the OP. 

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/126971-internal-vs-external-locus-of-control/

 

Of course the dead giveaway like folks said above are his claims of making a discovery with only 200 games played and his non-existent post count. 

 

The real amazing discovery would be if he actually wakes up to the reality that everyone's laughing at him and the embarrassment would raise his self awareness and therefore significantly improve his quality of life. 

[TheGirlFromIpanema]

Or aim better.

 

[pikohan]

C'mon OP, this is easy:

 

If the game were 100% random, the best player would have a winrate of 50%

 

If the game were 100% skill-based, the best player would have a winrate of 100%.

 

In actuality the best players manage around 60% to 70% winrate, which does suggest that luck plays a bigger role than skill, but it also suggests that the game definitely isn't entirely random.

[Lert]

I've discovered a simple truth about online gamers ...

 

A large portion have no concept of how to actually play the game or what constitutes good play and blame everything and everyone for their own failures instead of looking at themselves.

[Fiona_Marshe]

You have nothing to complain about until you fire 15" AP at a DD... and get 4 ricochet for 0 damage.

 

Yes, I have had this happen (only shooting Russian DDs, strangely).