Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
LancasterOne

Researching if MM is rigged (WR-rigging)

239 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

281
[BLAZE]
Beta Testers
201 posts
5,497 battles

As the title suggests. I think WG should implement a system that at least attempts to create teams with WR that averages out to 50/50 for both teams or else the game is pretty much rigged from the start.
An analogy would be to pitch a team of NBA pros against toddlers. 
I remember a long time ago we used to have a plugin we can install into our game so we can see the averaged mean WR of each team before it begins. 
Does anyone know if that plugin is still available? 
I would like to do some research on whether or not there's any statistical correlation between MM and WR-rigging. 

EDIT: found the software, I'm going to be monitoring the WR and MM for the next 50 games using the same ship in ranked. 
EDIT2: since there are a lot of lawyers on this board. I'm going to have to define the words used here. 
Rigging definition: affecting the outcome of a match by affecting the determinants that affects the outcome (i.e: players lineup)
Null hypothesis: MM is completely random, i.e on a long enough timeline the approximate team WR average should be 50%
Alternate hypothesis: MM is not completely random and the approximate team WR is not 50%
EDIT3: I am currently collecting data. It's going to take time but I'll report once I have the data.
EDIT4: This is taking a REALLY long time. I've been playing for 2 hours and I only got a few matches of data. If you would like to help with the project. I'd be more than happy to receive data, i.e: screenshot of WoWs Monitor and the outcome of the match so I can verify it. I'll add your name to the contributor of the research. 
EDIT5: It seems everyone on the internet is a statistician and DEMANDS the researcher be taken out of the equation and that all players in the test be robots of various WR so that it's a controlled experiment. Are you actually expecting me to code a bunch of bots and flood the MM with bots for this??

Edited by LancasterOne
  • Cool 14
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 6
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,105
[5D]
Members
1,164 posts
15,516 battles

it impossible 90% of the player base has like 48% winrate and under ...

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,361
[ARP]
[ARP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,357 posts
4,761 battles

Tinfoil hat time it seems.

 

~Hunter

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,104
[OIL-1]
Members
1,510 posts

Plugin is still available. Multiple versions exist.
But it doesn't matter.
Millions. Let me repeat that. 'Millions', of players already know that WG rigs the battles.
So no reason for you to repeat work that's already been done.
Can a 40% team beat a 60% team? Yes. But it doesn't happen often enough to make much difference.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[HOPAS]
Members
174 posts
22,009 battles

Not gonna happen....I been banned for asking this very question.....

Best thing I could suggest???? Using personal player score when servers are full.
It would help even the teams,but WG don't want even....they want what they want.

Win rate is just by luck anymore.It means nothing about skill.

And I'm not even worried about winning,just want closer scoring games.....blowouts are just boring & pointless......

Edited by Unacceptable_1
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,122 posts
22,687 battles
59 minutes ago, dad003 said:

it impossible 90% of the player base has like 48% winrate and under ...

I still can't figure out how. Like this picture, how can every tier 10 CV be a loser.

vTogjP2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,782
[ARGSY]
Members
24,478 posts
18,475 battles
2 hours ago, LancasterOne said:

WR that averages out to 50/50

You want to enforce mediocrity? You don't seem to understand what games - ANY games - are actually about. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,490
[O_O]
Members
7,041 posts
17,421 battles
1 hour ago, z9_ said:

Millions. Let me repeat that. 'Millions', of players already know that WG rigs the battles.

Stating a fantastical, fictional, sensational number for the sake of making your opinion sound more valid?  If that isn't the case, please share your source for this "millions" figure.  Do you work at CNN?

3 hours ago, LancasterOne said:

I remember a long time ago we used to have a plugin we can install into our game so we can see the averaged mean WR of each team before it begins. 
Does anyone know if that plugin is still available? 
I would like to do some research on whether or not there's any statistical correlation between MM and WR-rigging. 

If you get your head too wrapped up in how the teams stack up, you will blame every negative result on that team composition.  I suggest you concern yourself less with things you cannot control and just play to have fun every game.  You can have fun, even in a loss, if you allow yourself to.

And no, I don't work at WG.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[Y0L0W]
Beta Testers
354 posts
9,572 battles
23 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

You want to enforce mediocrity? You don't seem to understand what games - ANY games - are actually about. 

Making teams some what even so you have good close games instead of blowouts is not enforcing mediocrity i think its the opposite. Stacking one team and the game been over be4 it starts is enforcing mediocrity.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,782
[ARGSY]
Members
24,478 posts
18,475 battles
9 minutes ago, EraserNZ1 said:

Making teams some what even so you have good close games instead of blowouts

How do you guarantee that, though? I've seen those close battles happen (and wins turn to losses) because ONE guy on the other side has an incredibly good game, kills two or three of our key ships on the way to a kraken, and turns the flank that wins the game. So long as we are playing a game where ONE person randomly distributed to either side has the ability to turn the whole thing around, the nirvana you're seeking is impossible. Take what would otherwise have been a close battle and throw someone like that in on top of it, and you have your blowout.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,311
[-WTP-]
Beta Testers
3,798 posts
14,649 battles

I imagine when the 48% ers complain about the 43%ers, and so on, it kinda loses all meaning to complain about MM to start with.

  • Haha 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[TDRB]
Members
5,325 posts
13,743 battles
3 hours ago, LancasterOne said:

As the title suggests. I think WG should implement a system that at least attempts to create teams with WR that averages out to 50/50 for both teams or else the game is pretty much rigged from the start.
An analogy would be to pitch a team of NBA pros against toddlers. 
I remember a long time ago we used to have a plugin we can install into our game so we can see the averaged mean WR of each team before it begins. 
Does anyone know if that plugin is still available? 
I would like to do some research on whether or not there's any statistical correlation between MM and WR-rigging. 

The easiest & best solution is to ban matchmaking monitors from the game.

  • Cool 6
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[Y0L0W]
Beta Testers
354 posts
9,572 battles
Just now, kgh52 said:

The easiest & best solution is to ban matchmaking monitors from the game.

HAHAHAHAHAHA yes because thats going to solve the blowout games hahahahaha

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,981
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,197 posts

You have yet to gaze upon the phrase "It is what it is", to fully grasp the deeper meaning within, yes? 

Here's more that will help... "Change. Everyone wants it but all they got are Bills." 

Concern over such subjects is an absolute waste of everything involved. The game is owned. It is not a public thing. 

You just accept it as is and call out the obvious for extra fun and entertainment, as do the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[BLAZE]
Beta Testers
201 posts
5,497 battles
54 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

You want to enforce mediocrity? You don't seem to understand what games - ANY games - are actually about. 

Games are about skills so we match similarity skilled players together to create a tense and entertaining experience. 
Why not pair white belts against black belts in a karate championship then? 
If anything excellent players would be even better because then their WR wouldn't be dragged down as much by the MM stacking tomatoes on one team and unicums on others. 
That seems fair I think. 
Of course, it will only be a best-match system instead of any hard rules to avoid excessively long wait times, though my hypothesis is that in the current system there are absolutely no player performance based MM happening at all and that eats into the enjoyability of the game. We all like this game and we all want it to improve that's why we care and post and comment. 

  • Cool 1
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
1,349 posts
13,843 battles
2 hours ago, EraserNZ1 said:

both teams avg 48% winrate and have closer games then most of the curb stomps we have now...

I have been in games where both sides averaged 54% W/R. and it was a complete dominant wipe. the red team got surrounded and the game was over within 10 min. think about that for a min. BOTH SIDES KNEW HOW TO PLAY (by stats) and still a wipe. can't balance against mistakes, intent, solid red play.  you are the only constant in your battles. improve yourself and you will overcome the team situation. 

Edited by skillztowin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[BLAZE]
Beta Testers
201 posts
5,497 battles
Just now, RipNuN2 said:

What a novel thread. :cap_popcorn:

 

oh I've been around since CBT and before that at WoT, it's a problem that's been around for ....crap I'm old, almost a decade now. Yet it seems there's frighteningly little traction around solving intrinsic problems as opposed to people fangirling every time a new ship is released even if it might only have been a naval "legend". 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
939 posts
17,532 battles

I used to think the same way. I believe SOME games have a team that is stacked on one side but that is purely by chance I've learned. Most times the teams seems to be pretty even. I believe understanding game mechanics, Your Ship, The enemy ships, positioning and the initial moves the TEAM makes at the start of the game contribute more to winning than anything else. A player who understands the mechanics of the game can take the worst ship and have a positive

effect and a win on a consistent basis. Also, if your grinding MANY different types of ships in many different tiers, That can negatively effect your game play. Try sticking to 1 or 2 ships a day and see what happens. Good Luck. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[WOLFG]
Members
12,668 posts
11,787 battles
13 minutes ago, LancasterOne said:

 

oh I've been around since CBT and before that at WoT, it's a problem that's been around for ....crap I'm old, almost a decade now. Yet it seems there's frighteningly little traction around solving intrinsic problems as opposed to people fangirling every time a new ship is released even if it might only have been a naval "legend". 

Except to WG, your intrinsic problem is not a problem.  The game is built to have blowouts.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

They could add soft "skill" element into MM at the end, after the teams are built, without adding a lot of complexity and without pushing win rates towards 50%.

Choose a metric that approximates skill.  Once the teams are built, check for disparities in that metric that are outside a certain range.  Swap players until the disparity is inside that range.  Done.  Worst of the worse bad matchups eliminated, nothing else changes. 

 

As for matchmaking monitors, absolutely ban them, they do cause more blowouts, because players see those numbers or colors, and give up before the battle even starts, often when the difference isn't even that big.  

Ban matchmaking monitor mods.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,170
[INTEL]
Members
3,474 posts
19,978 battles
5 hours ago, LancasterOne said:

As the title suggests. I think WG should implement a system that at least attempts to create teams with WR that averages out to 50/50 for both teams or else the game is pretty much rigged from the start.
 

You do understand that you are asking WG to rig matchmaking?

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
582
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
1,349 posts
13,843 battles
2 minutes ago, ClassicLib said:

You do understand that you are asking WG to rig matchmaking?

ha. that comment will fly over many many captain heads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,815 posts
12,827 battles
3 hours ago, Joyous_Vibes said:

I still can't figure out how. Like this picture, how can every tier 10 CV be a loser.

vTogjP2.png

Because CVs are not overpowered.  Seriously every CV hater needs to play a CV tier 8 or higher.  Shut you up.  I hate CVs just like the rest.  Start to play them  Tier 8 in a up tiered game 9 or 10 you can see they are a spotting boat.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×