Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Litigo_1970

An Interesting Experiment

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

637
[TSF]
Members
631 posts
16,595 battles

Anecdotally, it seems that the more flags and high end camo I load on a ship, the worse I do that match.

It appeared to me that WG might be using matchmaking and RNG to directly neutralize much of the gain to be had from dragon flags and type 59 camo, etc. 

So I performed an experiment. 

Using the same two tier 9 battleships, I played 10 games with full dragon flags, full economic and combat flags, and type 59 camo. 

I played another 10 games with the same two ships, this time using no combat flags, no dragon flags, and regular camo. 

My average base experience when fully loaded with dragon flags, economic flags, combat flags, and type 59 camo, was 634.

My average base experience with no dragon flags, no combat flags, and regular camo, was 1128.

While playing the games, it seemed that in the ten games where I had fully loaded flags and camo, my teams were very bad, my shots just would not connect, and when they did, they were over pens and ricochets. It was not a subtle difference.

I realize the sample size is small, and it may be confirmation bias, but it's something to think about: 

Would WG really hesitate to tinker with RNG and matchmaking to reduce the effect of high end camo and flags, if they thought they could make money doing so?

Test it yourself and let me know what your results are. 

 

 n.b. all games were played in the same two tier 9 ships, in randoms, at substantially the same time. All games were solo and the same Captains were used. 

My average exp in randoms over 10,000+ games is 1518, but that number isn't limited to base experience, so is not a direct comparison. 

 

Edited by Litigo_1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[WGF]
Members
96 posts

That the MM and/or RNG have some sort of undisclosed functionality in them, that tailors how good or bad your games are is a very very real possibility. Something that tweaks the numbers just a little bit to ensure that players stay hooked and keep playing by making them feel just successful enough that they keep going for one more match. Why do you think they keep randomly asking how did we like a match we played, in the game?

But then I'm also certain that WG isn't the only publisher that does it. EA most likely does it with their multiplayer games. Heck studying customer behavior and then tailoring your business based on that is something everyone does. Video game publishers just have more control over how closely they can tailor that experience and how secretly they can do it.

You can bet that there's some sort of machine learning deal going on in the background on their servers that's collecting player behavior data and continually tweaking the game experience.

 

Edit:

https://patents.justia.com/company/zynga

This isn't the article I was looking for but it's pretty similar. What is to stop Zynga from adding a functionality where the software isn't just making the game easier in case a player is failing but also making it harder if they're being too successful?

Edited by diain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
703
[NSEW]
Members
2,616 posts
12,116 battles
3 hours ago, Litigo_1970 said:

Anecdotally

As is my anecdote.  This 'experiment' have been a confirmation bias for myself over the years.  Any use of special signals, nets a somewhat skewed MM for me.  Again, this is not based off of facts with tons of data.  Just over the years of games with similarly occurring results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
15 posts
352 battles

Same here, I always assume I just need to readjust my tinfoil hat...

...but I SWEAR if I load up on flags/camo its almost guaranteed crummy team and a loss

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19,109
[ARGSY]
Members
26,200 posts
20,492 battles
5 hours ago, Litigo_1970 said:

While playing the games, it seemed that in the ten games where I had fully loaded flags and camo, my teams were very bad, my shots just would not connect, and when they did, they were over pens and ricochets. It was not a subtle difference.

My counter-hypothesis is that you were under performance pressure, and that your poor shooting was reflected in lack of critical damage to enemy ships that eventually snowballed into a loss.

True, I've had some absolute garbage games fully flagged, but I've also had some which were quite spectacular. 

The difference is that I don't full-flag until I'm right at the end of a grind and two or three all-in battles will finish off that grind and get me across the line. 

 

I wouldn't run an experiment like yours because I don't care to waste my resources doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[CUDA]
Members
724 posts
9,960 battles

What is that maxim "Don't ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence." (not the OP's incompetence, the MM's incompetence) Something like that. Since most of us have a 50/50 chance of losing the odds of a 10 game losing streak are pretty good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,658
[SALVO]
Members
9,984 posts
7,228 battles

For this concept to work, there must exist a function for MM to thoroughly scan your current ship set up and include variables to account for flags and camo. How does it correlates the data with all the other ships in waiting? How are you pooled together in order to lose while respecting all the other MM known rules? 

If you think about it, the level of complexity required to implement that functionality is significant. Occam's Razor says you are just experiencing confirmation bias over a limited set of data. Give it 50 more matches and lets talk again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,869 posts
2,183 battles
9 hours ago, Litigo_1970 said:

Would WG really hesitate to tinker with RNG and matchmaking to reduce the effect of high end camo and flags, if they thought they could make money doing so?

They wouldn't do it. Too much work, and no guarantee for money. All you need to get camos & flags is 

  • combat missions
  • XP for daily container
  • visit to the armory

No actual money involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,729 posts
18,894 battles

It's long been acknowledged by the player base that if you want to play a game without CVs all you need to do is take out a ship with a full AA build flying an AA signal flag. Strange how it happens often enough that it becomes a part of the game's urban legend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[BGA]
Members
108 posts
19,493 battles

I'm convinced the game uses some type of RNG seeding and it changes on a time interval(my suspicion is a couple times a day).  In my theory it is possible to have a bad seed for a period of time and a good seed for a period of time.  In your test I wonder if it would come out the same if you alternated games between having flags and not rather than playing 10 one way then 10 another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,635
[-TRM-]
Members
4,575 posts

I save the dragons for the ops only.

They rake in well enough.

I cannot be bothered to fly anything other than economic in whatever it is.

Keep adding ships from your port until you have the necessary gain of whatever it is you are seeking today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,456
[SIMP]
Members
1,710 posts

Haven't done a scientific study, but after 1000's of battles I agree with the OP. 

And with WG's rep as a company, I'm positive there is some shady coding at work behind the scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
[OIL-1]
Members
1,959 posts

The OP is correct.
35,000 battles WoT & WoWS.
60,000 battles for my buddy.
Millions of battles from the WoT community before it was destroyed.
It has always been the same pattern.

Developers have been rigging games long before there was even an internet.
If you follow mainstream game development news, they are always coming up
with new and innovative ways to rig the game.
Standalone games are now just as bad as online games.
It's all about making more money.

One of the latest is called 'Dynamic Hit Boxes'.
The better your accuracy, the smaller the target becomes.

5 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Give it 50 more matches and lets talk again.

Only 50?
I've logged 50 battles more than 50 times.
In WoT, I had to log batches of 100 battles just to test minor strategy changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[4_0_4]
Members
314 posts
1,926 battles
12 hours ago, Litigo_1970 said:

Anecdotally, it seems that the more flags and high end camo I load on a ship, the worse I do that match.

It appeared to me that WG might be using matchmaking and RNG to directly neutralize much of the gain to be had from dragon flags and type 59 camo, etc. 

So I performed an experiment. 

Using the same two tier 9 battleships, I played 10 games with full dragon flags, full economic and combat flags, and type 59 camo. 

I played another 10 games with the same two ships, this time using no combat flags, no dragon flags, and regular camo. 

My average base experience when fully loaded with dragon flags, economic flags, combat flags, and type 59 camo, was 634.

My average base experience with no dragon flags, no combat flags, and regular camo, was 1128.

While playing the games, it seemed that in the ten games where I had fully loaded flags and camo, my teams were very bad, my shots just would not connect, and when they did, they were over pens and ricochets. It was not a subtle difference.

I realize the sample size is small, and it may be confirmation bias, but it's something to think about: 

Would WG really hesitate to tinker with RNG and matchmaking to reduce the effect of high end camo and flags, if they thought they could make money doing so?

Test it yourself and let me know what your results are. 

 

 n.b. all games were played in the same two tier 9 ships, in randoms, at substantially the same time. All games were solo and the same Captains were used. 

My average exp in randoms over 10,000+ games is 1518, but that number isn't limited to base experience, so is not a direct comparison. 

 

Have to say, I have noticed a trend where if I load up on flags my games tend to be worse.  Never had enough of them to do a true scientific test, and I’ve had games where I did really well with flags, but I do think you might be on to something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[MI-BR]
Members
68 posts
13 hours ago, Litigo_1970 said:

Anecdotally, it seems that the more flags and high end camo I load on a ship, the worse I do that match.

I think OP is correct, I had thought that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,032
[WOLFG]
Members
34,409 posts
10,728 battles
14 hours ago, Litigo_1970 said:

 

Would WG really hesitate to tinker with RNG and matchmaking to reduce the effect of high end camo and flags, if they thought they could make money doing so?

It just seems like a lot of hassle, when they could accomplish the same thing by not handing them out like candy...

I mean, look what they did with achievements and those signals. No smoke and mirrors, just a straight up reduction in available signals, and if you don't like it, too bad, thanks for playing.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,298
[A-I-M]
Members
4,336 posts
15,779 battles
8 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The difference is that I don't full-flag until I'm right at the end of a grind and two or three all-in battles will finish off that grind and get me across the line.

Run full flags at the beginning of a grind to get out of stock modules faster, with minimum FXP outlay.

8 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I wouldn't run an experiment like yours because I don't care to waste my resources doing so.

Learning isn’t necessarily wasting…up to a point.

Of course, I’m the guy who sold his Friesland after one battle to see what it cost to buy it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×