I want to put mm is rigged threads to rest.

[Ducc_ducc]

Here is the idea, I will be using a MM tracker for the next month, keeping to track of team composition and keeping track of it. I will mark biases in any direction. Personally I don't think it's rigged, and expect the most common team composition to be a roughly equal mix.

What I'd like is for maybe 10-20 people to do the same, to help increase sample size, maybe then we can put these threads to rest. If you do help, please post each weeks games in spoiler tags so I can easily keep track.

[Ducc_ducc]

If you are going to help, list results like this:

My team:

60% plus players N

45-60% players N

45%- players N

Radar ships N

And report same statistics for the enemy team.

[Sotaudi]

I support your intent, but I think you are dreaming if you think any data will put the threads to rest.  Rigged match making conspiracies have been alive and well since WoT released, and data proving differently has never changed one mind as far as I can tell.

[dmckay]

This has been done by others over the years.  Changes nothing.  NOTHING!  The troops ain't happy less they b#tching.  But go ahead and good luck. 

[Admiral_Thrawn_1]

7 minutes ago, megadeux said:

Here is the idea, I will be using a MM tracker for the next month, keeping to track of team composition and keeping track of it. I will mark biases in any direction. Personally I don't think it's rigged, and expect the most common team composition to be a roughly equal mix.

What I'd like is for maybe 10-20 people to do the same, to help increase sample size, maybe then we can put these threads to rest. If you do help, please post each weeks games in spoiler tags so I can easily keep track.

This does sound like good idea, although for better data we would need 3 month sample period or so. Because when I have played World of Tanks Blitz you could go without a rigged match even beyond a month and then get hammered by a match where enemy team had the better armor, better tanks, and better players. Your team on the other hand is pretty much all sub par except for the targeted players that the system some how decides need to have a loss. Have the MM in that game memorized enough to do well these days.

 

Wows is little harder to track since they have few different variables added in. Big thing you need to do is get data in March as opposed to another month because my stats were doing well, not unicum of course, but still favorable. Then got hammered by bad teams every day for 3 weeks solid. Never have I seen matches like those in the 2 years in Blitz , a week of bad luck maybe if things had really hit the fan, but 3 weeks never, not with out an occasional good day added in here and there.

[Ducc_ducc]

Just now, dmckay said:

This has been done by others over the years.  Changes nothing.  NOTHING!  The troops ain't happy less they b#tching.  But go ahead and good luck. 

Really? I expect when MM is rigged threads would come up people would refer to threads like this. So far I have seen neither side of the debates bring up a statistics based experiment like this.

[dmckay]

1 minute ago, Sotaudi said:

I support your intent, but I think you are dreaming if you think any data will put the threads to rest.  Rigged match making conspiracies have been alive and well since WoT released, and data proving differently has never changed one mind as far as I can tell.

Yup....like I said. People love conspiracies. Also, most folks believe what they NEED to believe....if that makes sense. 

[Ducc_ducc]

3 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

This does sound like good idea, although for better data we would need 3 month sample period or so. Because when I have played World of Tanks Blitz you could go without a rigged match even beyond a month and then get hammered by a match where enemy team had the better armor, better tanks, and better players. Your team on the other hand is pretty much all sub par except for the targeted players that the system some how decides need to have a loss. Have the MM in that game memorized enough to do well these days.

 

Wows is little harder to track since they have few different variables added in. Big thing you need to do is get data in March as opposed to another month because my stats were doing well, not unicum of course, but still favorable. Then got hammered by bad teams every day for 3 weeks solid. Never have I seen matches like those in the 2 years in Blitz , a week of bad luck maybe if things had really hit the fan, but 3 weeks never, not with out an occasional good day added in here and there.

Good point, will extend the period. I'm also asking others to help to expand sample size, and more importantly, to see if MM is rigged against certain players.

[dmckay]

2 minutes ago, megadeux said:

Really? I expect when MM is rigged threads would come up people would refer to threads like this. So far I have seen neither side of the debates bring up a statistics based experiment like this.

Been done several times in WoT.  

[awiggin]

1 minute ago, megadeux said:

Really? I expect when MM is rigged threads would come up people would refer to threads like this. So far I have seen neither side of the debates bring up a statistics based experiment like this.

The real issue here is you simply won't get the required data points for a decent analysis.

With 500k+ players, 92% of which never even come to the forums, the odds of getting enough data from a cross section of the player base seems far fetched.....

[Ducc_ducc]

1 minute ago, dmckay said:

Been done several times in WoT.  

Well, I want to do the same for WoWS, then at least one side in the mm is rigged threads will be able to use actual data.

[Ducc_ducc]

1 minute ago, awiggin said:

The real issue here is you simply won't get the required data points for a decent analysis.

With 500k+ players, 92% of which never even come to the forums, the odds of getting enough data from a cross section of the player base seems far fetched.....

Well, it would be nice if people helped, but so far I have not seen a single person keep track of their games composition and post the findings. Which is what irks me about MM is rigged threads. If people believe it's rigged, they should try to prove it.

[pmgaudio]

[dmckay]

8 minutes ago, megadeux said:

Well, it would be nice if people helped, but so far I have not seen a single person keep track of their games composition and post the findings. Which is what irks me about MM is rigged threads. If people believe it's rigged, they should try to prove it.

WoT is a lot older and you would have to search for the data but many times there were threads by players over there who had tracked their W-L records for days in an effort to show MM was rigged against them. Wish I could be of more help.  People here who have played WoT for a long time are, I am sure, aware of this and might back me up. It was done by many many times.  Of course many over there are completely insane about their "stats".  Carry on.  Good luck.

[HMCS_Devilfish]

Ive done my own survey and what I found were definite patterns that seemed to suggest Wows is tracking your games to keep you happy but not to happy to get you discouraged,

I applied this to the latest ranked and got to 10 very quickly usually playing just 2 games never more than 3 and stop even if on a winning streak

 

Rigged is the wrong word, it’s more like stacked in the dealers favor... the reason, it makes Wows the most $$$ that’s why you face ships 2 tiers higher than yours all the time, cause it influences the players to move up to get one of them there OP ships,and we’re not talking players like me with many thousands of games ... it’s the new players moving up the tiers,

there was a poll months ago asking would you wait in Queen longer for better MM say same tier 75% 20% 1  tier 5% 2 Tier.. the majority liked this better than present, or give us a choice on what tier we battle in 

 

[FrodoFraggin]

I'd be very interested in statistics where matches have DD mismatches (I.e., 2 vs 3) in Domination and Standard mode. 

[Admiral_Thrawn_1]

47 minutes ago, Sotaudi said:

I support your intent, but I think you are dreaming if you think any data will put the threads to rest.  Rigged match making conspiracies have been alive and well since WoT released, and data proving differently has never changed one mind as far as I can tell.

You would be surprised if you carefully documented your scores, team composition, wins and losses you would find the system does fluctuate so a good player will have the odds increasely stacked against them so they take an occasional loss while bad player has to be given a win once in a while.

Did this for a little while in WOT Blitz while trying to get the survivor award and you would run into problems about the 7th battle and from that point on you ad to Division and spend a lot on premium ammo and consumables for both you and your friend if you wanted to keep stating alive and winning.

the cycle would  reset if you died. And I had track that particular pattern about 40 times and results were quite consistent with a 3-4 battle variance since the kill you  battle cycle  could started battle 6-8 or occasionally battle 9 for the sake of making things look Random.

Never had believed or thought about the MM system actually wanting you dead sometimes until started tracking it mainly for that award, but later for the results..

[NitroLauncher717]

45 minutes ago, Sotaudi said:

I support your intent, but I think you are dreaming if you think any data will put the threads to rest.  Rigged match making conspiracies have been alive and well since WoT released, and data proving differently has never changed one mind as far as I can tell.

One of them I watched came up with:

Matchmaker and RNG are indeed influenced by personal performance, in a bell curve. When tracking the stats of a 35%er it was noted that their shots were consistently more accurate and more likely to be on a team stacked with a better composition than the opposing team. Compared to someone doing well whose shots were more likely to be a hair off Target and we're placed in a composition where they were one of the "better" vehicles and in turn expected to do better just to win (a team of fairly squishy allies and said person was a medium-weight with enough armor to turn the tide because of their skill)

 

It's also been 5 years since this was done, but it stuck with me because of the findings across a couple hundred battles IIRC. Not enough to be ultra conclusive, but evident of some kind of skill-based influence DOES exist, much to the constant denial.

[ReddNekk]

MM is okey-dokey when you win, and is rigged when you lose. 

16 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Rigged is the wrong word, it’s more like stacked in the dealers favor... the reason, it makes Wows the most $$$ that’s why you face ships 2 tiers higher than yours all the time, cause it influences the players to move up to get one of them there OP ships,and we’re not talking players like me with many thousands of games ... it’s the new players moving up the tiers

That's my belief as to why WG stubbornly clings to +2 -2 MM, $$$$. Most Premium Ships being tiers 5-8 aint a coincidence.

[Taichunger]

It won't put them to rest. People who commit to alternate realities aren't moved by facts, evidence, or data, and the rigged MM claim is based on recent win rate -- players argue that MM is screwing them because they have been winning. 

[Admiral_Thrawn_1]

17 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Ive done my own survey and what I found were definite patterns that seemed to suggest Wows is tracking your games to keep you happy but not to happy to get you discouraged,

I applied this to the latest ranked and got to 10 very quickly usually playing just 2 games never more than 3 and stop even if on a winning streak

 

Rigged is the wrong word, it’s more like stacked in the dealers favor... the reason, it makes Wows the most $$$ that’s why you face ships 2 tiers higher than yours all the time, cause it influences the players to move up to get one of them there OP ships,and we’re not talking players like me with many thousands of games ... it’s the new players moving up the tiers,

there was a poll months ago asking would you wait in Queen longer for better MM say same tier 75% 20% 1  tier 5% 2 Tier.. the majority liked this better than present, or give us a choice on what tier we battle in 

 

This was actually discussed in Ranked battle this morning that the system might have a built in system designed to try to hurt you if you did too well previous battle or battles.

I know some battle games you can generate aggression points or what they call aggro if you attack too much and too powerfully within short span of time So enemy focuses more and more on you, so to be the most efficient you have to balance your damage output to kill enemies and do damage in the battle without tripping  the system.

WOWs might have something like that because it seems like it's right after the battle you win Kraken, High caliber, dreadnaght, and a few other awards. Plus you made firmness in credits and XP. Doesn't it seem like next battle is the one where RNG fans your salvoes around the targets, you can get floods or fires. And yet enemy touches you once with HE shell and you burn...

[Taichunger]

16 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

This was actually discussed in Ranked battle this morning that the system might have a built in system designed to try to hurt you if you did too well previous battle or battles.

I know some battle games you can generate aggression points or what they call aggro if you attack too much and too powerfully within short span of time So enemy focuses more and more on you, so to be the most efficient you have to balance your damage output to kill enemies and do damage in the battle without tripping  the system.

WOWs might have something like that because it seems like it's right after the battle you win Kraken, High caliber, dreadnaght, and a few other awards. Plus you made firmness in credits and XP. Doesn't it seem like next battle is the one where RNG fans your salvoes around the targets, you can get floods or fires. And yet enemy touches you once with HE shell and you burn...

WOWs does not have a system like that. (1) it is entirely predictable which players will Rank out, based on player skill (2) long winning streaks are common, I had an eight game one, and my clan mate went 25-2 the other day. No such system exists in Ranked, it would become obvious.

[evilleMonkeigh]

Accepting stats showing MM is not rigged, no matter how well documented, would for many people, mean accepting they are not being unfairly victimized by the universe, and are simply worse at coping with MM than others. And that's not going to happen.

Even if you succeeded in convincing them  MM isn't to blame for their woes, it'll be something else.  The "meta" or an OP ship or some spam of something, or their "weekend team mates."

[Wulfgarn]

I've done this since the Match Making program became available in Aslains Modpack.

Data is infrequent since I don't play like I use to these days.

I'm not releasing my data at any point, but I'm interested to hear if others come to the same conclusions that I have.

Make sure to keep data for Ranked, and Random separate.

Take screenshots each battle even if you write them down.

[Ghostdog1355]

  To all Captains from Ghostdog. My crew, Commander and Chief do not believe in rigged battles. MM is not a conspiracy in our opinion. We simply believe it's a computer program that throws us into battle. We are dogs ok. You know how hard it is to train a crew of misfits, pound rejects, puppies etc when we don't have thumbs? Just when the Chief gets em trained up somebody throws a tennis ball on deck while we are training. We are still working on our gunnery skills. Again loading shells with no thumbs is tough on a Battleship. We don't calculate stuff out. We don't care. We go out, chase the enemy down and protect our team. All dogs are on deck for that.

  My crew and I throw ourselves into battle every night. We believe always no matter who we fight, what tier they are , what ship they are in, what special skills they have, we will chase them down the street until we get them.