Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
aethervox

Typical Garbage WG MM arrangements along with arranged targeting

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,235 battles

Typical. 1-3 WL

Four battles after the big patch, two losses of which were jokes.

Complete garbage targeting resolutions. So many 1 hit volleys that are on target but their volleys always on target?

Typical way WG arranges results along with blatant team make up rigging.

Oh sure, 73+ BBs in the queue & it takes 2+ minutes to randomize a team? Ya sure - more like WG arranging the teams.

What a BC (bull crap) session: 1-1 WL (which was OK) then two 'arrangements' by WG.

& WG wonders why (maybe they don't) so many players comment on their MM & their 'shell targeting resolution algorithms'.

WG 'shell targeting resolution algorithms', software that cheats, imho.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[NGA-R]
Supertester
1,040 posts
5,893 battles

LOL, this moron actually thinks someone is sitting there behind a computer arranging teams LOL.  He needs some serious mental help.  But its not surprising with the posts he makes.  Instead of getting better at the game he decides to dream up these fantastic conspiracy theories.  I love it.  Thanks again for a good laugh old man.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,244
[SCCC]
Members
1,132 posts
5,571 battles

Arranged targeting? Like the target lock?

If there were skilled based matches all of a sudden shouldn't my games last less than 10 minutes because they're full of unicum players? Nothing is wrong with the MM, the sudden surge of bad teams/players is the result of more people playing because a new line was just released.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,943
[SYN]
Members
14,378 posts
10,239 battles

came in expecting typical aethervox comedy thread

was not dissapointed

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,532
[HINON]
Supertester
18,957 posts
12,479 battles

Me finding this thread:

vHDSZan.gif

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,081
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor
6,240 posts
3,082 battles

Why would WG want to target you, specifically? Did you do something to piss them off or something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[KFL]
Members
689 posts
5,382 battles
8 minutes ago, FayFay731 said:

Arranged targeting? Like the target lock?

If there were skilled based matches all of a sudden shouldn't my games last less than 10 minutes because they're full of unicum players? Nothing is wrong with the MM, the sudden surge of bad teams/players is the result of more people playing because a new line was just released.

He is talking about rng.

 

On a side note I had 3 games yesterday where I had 220k+ damage and our team was dominated. I can see where people want SOMETHING done with MM but the question is what........

Edited by pck3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[1IF]
Alpha Tester
4,252 posts
8,235 battles

Your denials of WG  'arrangements' are typical along with the personal attacks directed at me.

Only WG knows for sure & they will never say, will they?

Yet, there is circumstantial evidence which points to one logical conclusion.

Even legal trials use 'circumstantial evidence' to convict.

So, keep to your blinkered view. I, at least, point out the 'arrangements' that WG is renowned for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
352
[D12]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,065 posts
8,857 battles
2 minutes ago, aethervox said:

Your denials of WG  'arrangements' are typical along with the personal attacks directed at me.

Only WG knows for sure & they will never say, will they?

Yet, there is circumstantial evidence which points to one logical conclusion.

Even legal trials use 'circumstantial evidence' to convict.

So, keep to your blinkered view. I, at least, point out the 'arrangements' that WG is renowned for.

:etc_swear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,768 battles
4 minutes ago, aethervox said:

Your denials of WG  'arrangements' are typical along with the personal attacks directed at me.

Only WG knows for sure & they will never say, will they?

Yet, there is circumstantial evidence which points to one logical conclusion.

Even legal trials use 'circumstantial evidence' to convict.

So, keep to your blinkered view. I, at least, point out the 'arrangements' that WG is renowned for.


Seriously?  They "know" and until they confess it's best to just assume they're guilty?

 You went 1 & 3 over 4 games.  That's a stupidly small sample size.  I've gone through 9 game losing streaks....people have had to endure random match making produce a lot worse than what you experienced in that hour.  

And circumstantial evidence?  ....there's not enough gifs in the world to face palm this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,587
[HINON]
Supertester
3,924 posts
5,163 battles
16 minutes ago, RivertheRoyal said:

Why would WG want to target you, specifically? Did you do something to piss them off or something? 

Yes, he continues to spam the forums with useless threads :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,081
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor
6,240 posts
3,082 battles
3 minutes ago, aethervox said:

Your denials of WG  'arrangements' are typical along with the personal attacks directed at me.

Only WG knows for sure & they will never say, will they?

Yet, there is circumstantial evidence which points to one logical conclusion.

Even legal trials use 'circumstantial evidence' to convict.

So, keep to your blinkered view. I, at least, point out the 'arrangements' that WG is renowned for.

 

Well, see, here's the thing. Circumstantial evidence isn't really evidence at all, especially in this case. Saying "Oh! I keep getting bad teams and my shots alway miss, so this must be evidence of WG rigging things against me!" doesn't work, as by making the statement that this sort of thing must be true, then the inverse must also be true: i.e, having a good streak of games must mean that WG is favouring you, or that getting up and doing a silly dance makes it more likely for you to win because you did it before and got a ten game win streak. 

No, your own experience doesn't count as verifiable evidence. At most, it's anecdotal evidence, pointing to a shady and confusing answer of which even you say you don't know the motive of. 

 

Here's a tip. There's this thought process that exists, about this sort of situation. It's called Occam's Razor, and states that this simpler conclusion will always be preferable to the more complex ones.

So, is WG rigging games for some unknown reason and without much motive, and even then only certain players as nobody else seems to think it's happening, or is it just random? 

 

I lean more to the latter, myself.    

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
582 posts
4,205 battles
54 minutes ago, aethervox said:

Typical. 1-3 WL

Four battles after the big patch, two losses of which were jokes.

Complete garbage targeting resolutions. So many 1 hit volleys that are on target but their volleys always on target?

Typical way WG arranges results along with blatant team make up rigging.

Oh sure, 73+ BBs in the queue & it takes 2+ minutes to randomize a team? Ya sure - more like WG arranging the teams.

What a BC (bull crap) session: 1-1 WL (which was OK) then two 'arrangements' by WG.

& WG wonders why (maybe they don't) so many players comment on their MM & their 'shell targeting resolution algorithms'.

WG 'shell targeting resolution algorithms', software that cheats, imho.

 

 

This is the same company that released the Graf Zepplin in a half-released state.

 

Use your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,269
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts
38 minutes ago, aethervox said:

Typical. 1-3 WL

Four battles after the big patch, two losses of which were jokes.

Complete garbage targeting resolutions. So many 1 hit volleys that are on target but their volleys always on target?

Typical way WG arranges results along with blatant team make up rigging.

Oh sure, 73+ BBs in the queue & it takes 2+ minutes to randomize a team? Ya sure - more like WG arranging the teams.

What a BC (bull crap) session: 1-1 WL (which was OK) then two 'arrangements' by WG.

& WG wonders why (maybe they don't) so many players comment on their MM & their 'shell targeting resolution algorithms'.

WG 'shell targeting resolution algorithms', software that cheats, imho.

 

Soooooo wait you actually think WG directly controls dispersion to fix games for one side? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[TSPC]
Beta Testers
1,104 posts
10,101 battles
1 hour ago, aethervox said:

Typical. 1-3 WL

Four battles after the big patch, two losses of which were jokes.

Complete garbage targeting resolutions. So many 1 hit volleys that are on target but their volleys always on target?

Typical way WG arranges results along with blatant team make up rigging.

Oh sure, 73+ BBs in the queue & it takes 2+ minutes to randomize a team? Ya sure - more like WG arranging the teams.

What a BC (bull crap) session: 1-1 WL (which was OK) then two 'arrangements' by WG.

& WG wonders why (maybe they don't) so many players comment on their MM & their 'shell targeting resolution algorithms'.

WG 'shell targeting resolution algorithms', software that cheats, imho.

 

I always enjoy these "rants".   I don't agree with them but, I can't help clicking on them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
974 posts
1,871 battles
1 hour ago, aethervox said:

Typical. 1-3 WL

Four battles after the big patch, two losses of which were jokes.

Complete garbage targeting resolutions. So many 1 hit volleys that are on target but their volleys always on target?

Typical way WG arranges results along with blatant team make up rigging.

Oh sure, 73+ BBs in the queue & it takes 2+ minutes to randomize a team? Ya sure - more like WG arranging the teams.

What a BC (bull crap) session: 1-1 WL (which was OK) then two 'arrangements' by WG.

& WG wonders why (maybe they don't) so many players comment on their MM & their 'shell targeting resolution algorithms'.

WG 'shell targeting resolution algorithms', software that cheats, imho.

 

 the reason it takes 2+ minutes to get a match when there is 73+ BBs in the MM is BECAUSE there is 73+ BBs in the MM the matchmaker doesn't let there be 12v12 BB games they want at least half the team to be a different class but believe what you want no one can judge you for being wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
360
[ARP2]
Members
1,224 posts
3,566 battles
5 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

I always enjoy these "rants".   I don't agree with them but, I can't help clicking on them.

I blame my masochistic side personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
728 posts
3,804 battles

I was, I think, 2-2 this morning.  I won with the tier 3 and 5 RN BBs, and I lost with the tier 4 and my Campbeltown.

 

Should I be concerned?

 

Should I write my congressperson?

 

Should I start day-drinking?

 

Just curious.

 

~B

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,708
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

I see Aethervox has another well thought out and well written post on the matchmaker....

 

Time for the popcorn! :Smile_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,051
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles

Aether, you need to stock up on aluminum foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[PT8TO]
Members
277 posts
11,622 battles
Just now, Doomlock said:

I see Aethervox has another well thought out and well written post on the matchmaker....

 

Time for the popcorn! :Smile_popcorn:

popcornantelope.gif.530508e3d97d8fc526d5030494b15efd.gif.34d98db639a5cc87017982951b5dadee.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×