75 replies to this topic

[Letsg0Met586]

Assuming the matchmaker does not deliberately create loser teams (maybe a bad assumption) more bad players means good players get higher win rates.  Why?  Think of it this way, if all players were equally skilled and eveybody drove the same tank (eliminating tank effect), everybody would have the same win rate as battles go to infinity.  As player skill variance increases, then WR variance increases.  The bigger the difference in skill between good and bad players, the bigger the difference in WR between good and bad players.  The closer in skill, the tighter the WR variance.  Therefore arguments that noobs and potatoes ruin win rates are the opposite of truth.  Please explain why I'm wrong. 

[RiezMich]

this is what I've been saying all this time, players complaining about noob teams. but without this noob players who you will not win

[Katman]

Blitz is very much a team based game. It is harder to win with bad players on your team. It's easier to win with a good players on your team. Is basically the same dynamics of  a sport but the mm is unpredicatable so good players are thrown on teams with bad players. Then bad players are thrown on teams with good players. The very last factor in bad  or good teams, is how many drivers know what they are doing? Can they seal the deal on a win? Can they turn around alossing battle? These questions seem to separate the good players fromthe bad players. IMO

[ComradePike]

My WR% has steadily risen, up to 57.4% now, so I can't uck?argue.  Of course it's a more tangible thing when you rack up 3,000+ damage and lose---that rage is what leads all of us here to complain I think, but I can't argue that despite all that I've still made progress towards 60%.  I think one thing I've learned is that in those 30% or so of games where you can have an impact on the outcome...you really have to been on your game.  

[SkiFletch]

You're right, though it means you have to carry your Fing face off with the whole more bad players concept.  Last night my toon mate and I needed to do 80% of our team's damage combined to win.  If we didnt, we lost.  It's like playing 2 on 7 with 5 bots that shoot randomly on your team.

[RedBarchetta3]

I agree with you. On Monday's we'll see a number of threads from people who's WRs dropped as a result of less-skilled players. If someone did a count, I'd be surprised if it was more than 25 individuals.  There are probably an equal number of people who benefited, but just don't post, or even care. Next week it might be 25 people, but 10 of them didn't have anything to complain about. After a few weeks of this it sounds like a lot of people are getting wrecked by noob teams, and no one is benefiting.

Edited by RedBarchetta3, 23 March 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[Brundog]

It makes playing solo a bit rough, I still do it and win more than I lose.  The losses tend to be of the brutal variety though, teams getting stomped/no teamwork while I try my best to hang on.  A few curb stompings in arow can test anybodies resilience.

 

WIth a platoon though, my WR has been steadily increasing.  Win streaks of 10+ games are not uncommon.

[SimpleOrdMinAnthony]

Just as those at 64% working toward 70%, some are at 46% working toward 52%. Either way, the complaints are the same many times; you feel held back somehow like you can never get ahead. This isn't so bad for a 64% er, but it is for the 46% er because you can't get out of the ''you suck'' stage. Plus nobody in higher tiers wants to platoon with you, so that's out for getting help. Too bad there isn't a training area where you could hook up with better players to learn without them worrying about their stats going down. 

[Three60Mafia]

Realistically you can either carry hard, or be carried. 

Problem is the other team might have 2 - 3 carries, and then you lose. 

 

 

[vvk2]

I totally agree - I even posted that our 50%+ WR comes at noobs expense

I think the issue is that the actual population of tiers varies significantly during week/time of day... That impacts your chances to win: if you are say tier 8 and ended up more often in tier 10 battles, then your own contribution (e.g. skills) will play lesser role, hence your win rate will be more dependent on others hence it will be trending to 50%... If you are a top tier tank and you are good, you are more likely to be able to carry the battle hence improve your WR above 50%. 

IMHO, the fluctuation of the tier populations is what we feel and perceive as noobs invasions...

I also think there is a less visible trend in the tier density - more people are coming to higher tiers, hence changing the dynamic of the MM...

I used to like Tier 6 MM, now I moved to Tier 7 to see less 2+ battles... It seems to be changing now and I see more Tier 9 tanks... I may need to go back to Tier 6 to make credits....

 

 

 

[tedg5]

I have been thinking about this a lot, and while I wondered why I couldn't be the difference between victory or defeat alone. I looked at my tanks win rates and other stats. The other factor that comes into this is which tank you are playing, few tanks can be the difference makers by themselves. Take my T-34-85, each shot I do around 100 damage. The fact is it takes so many shots to actually kill enemy tanks with it that doing enough damage while not taking any is very difficult to carry a game without help from your team. So, some tanks are just more team dependent than others, like a T28 or T95.

[CptCheez]

We're all playing a game that can only have 3 results: Win, Lose or Draw.  Hmm that sounds like a good name for a game show, I should look into that...but I digress.

 

Because there's a limited number of players with only those few results, there is a fixed number of Wins that anybody can get.  What does that mean for everyone else?  Well, a Win for you comes at the expense of a Loss for 7 other people.  I've been playing around with this in a stats simulator this morning (many thanks to Saigoned!!) and found some interesting results.  In a pool of 200 players, I can select a desired Win Rate for Player #1 and then run a simulation of however many games I want it to play.  Player #1 is always in the game and the other 13 players are chosen randomly from the pool of 199 and assigned to each team.  If I run around 7000 games for Player #1, that results in an average of 450 games for everyone else.

 

All things being equal and if I leave Player #1 set to 50%, everybody else's WR should be around 50%, right?  We're talking average of the whole pool.  Of course there's variance within that pool, ranging anywhere from 43-56%.

 

But what happens if we change the WR of Player #1?  If I set a target WR for Player #1 to be just 53%, the average WR of the other 199 players drops from 50% to 49.7%.  That's an aggregate loss of 59.7% for the 199 other players just so 1 player can gain 3%.

 

For Player #1 to get a 55% Win Rate, the average WR of the rest of the pool drops from 50% to 49.6%.  Aggregate loss of 79.6% for the 199 other players just so 1 player can gain 5%.

 

For Player #1 to get a 60% Win Rate, the average WR of the rest of the pool has to drop to 49%.  199 people have to give up 1% of their WR for 1 single person to gain 10%.  Does that mean all 199 players in the pool are at 49% WR?  Nah, it's an average, remember?  They still range from 42% - 55%.

 

But what if we have a small clan of 20 players with an average 60% WR?  Of course we then have to change the results table.  If one or more clan members is on the green team, that will increase Player #1's chance of winning.  But if one or more clan members is on the red, that will tip the scales the other way.  That's all taken into account.  So with these 20 people all at 60% WR, the average WR of the other 180 players in the pool drops to 48%, ranging anywhere from 39.27% (we've all seen that guy) - 58.51%!  An aggregate loss of 360% for the clan gain of 200.

 

TL;DR - If your WR is over 50%, thank the potatoes you see in the game.  They're the ones whose lower WR is allowing yours to be that high. 

[reluctanttheist]

CptCheez, on 23 March 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

TL;DR - If your WR is over 50%, thank the potatoes you see in the game.  They're the ones whose lower WR is allowing yours to be that high. 

 

Hardly counts as TL;DR - it explains the math behind the redistribution of one's winrate when you work on heading up the food chain

[Sallysipad12]

CptCheez, on 23 March 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

We're all playing a game that can only have 3 results: Win, Lose or Draw.  Hmm that sounds like a good name for a game show, I should look into that...but I digress.

 

Because there's a limited number of players with only those few results, there is a fixed number of Wins that anybody can get.  What does that mean for everyone else?  Well, a Win for you comes at the expense of a Loss for 7 other people.  I've been playing around with this in a stats simulator this morning (many thanks to Saigoned!!) and found some interesting results.  In a pool of 200 players, I can select a desired Win Rate for Player #1 and then run a simulation of however many games I want it to play.  Player #1 is always in the game and the other 13 players are chosen randomly from the pool of 199 and assigned to each team.  If I run around 7000 games for Player #1, that results in an average of 450 games for everyone else.

 

All things being equal and if I leave Player #1 set to 50%, everybody else's WR should be around 50%, right?  We're talking average of the whole pool.  Of course there's variance within that pool, ranging anywhere from 43-56%.

 

But what happens if we change the WR of Player #1?  If I set a target WR for Player #1 to be just 53%, the average WR of the other 199 players drops from 50% to 49.7%.  That's an aggregate loss of 59.7% for the 199 other players just so 1 player can gain 3%.

 

For Player #1 to get a 55% Win Rate, the average WR of the rest of the pool drops from 50% to 49.6%.  Aggregate loss of 79.6% for the 199 other players just so 1 player can gain 5%.

 

For Player #1 to get a 60% Win Rate, the average WR of the rest of the pool has to drop to 49%.  199 people have to give up 1% of their WR for 1 single person to gain 10%.  Does that mean all 199 players in the pool are at 49% WR?  Nah, it's an average, remember?  They still range from 42% - 55%.

 

But what if we have a small clan of 20 players with an average 60% WR?  Of course we then have to change the results table.  If one or more clan members is on the green team, that will increase Player #1's chance of winning.  But if one or more clan members is on the red, that will tip the scales the other way.  That's all taken into account.  So with these 20 people all at 60% WR, the average WR of the other 180 players in the pool drops to 48%, ranging anywhere from 39.27% (we've all seen that guy) - 58.51%!  An aggregate loss of 360% for the clan gain of 200.

 

TL;DR - If your WR is over 50%, thank the potatoes you see in the game.  They're the ones whose lower WR is allowing yours to be that high. 

 

Capt...I think you just made my head explode with your explanation like a well placed HE round shot to the rear...

 

I'm gonna take a couple of Tylenol and go lay down now...

[Serapth]

I don't really think its all that much about win rates, it isn't for me.  I think pretty much everyone has experienced peeks and valleys at this point.

 

What really gets to players on the weekend is the sheer futility of it all.  When you've just lost your fourth straight 4000+ damage round, you start to get a bit pissed.  When it only seems to happen on certain days, you start to draw conclusions.

 

It may be that a massive influx of terrabad players is actually a boon to average or below average win rate players.  Perhaps it marginalizes the amount the a unicum can carry.  Who knows.  What it certainly does though is boosts the advantage gained by platooning.

Edited by Serapth, 23 March 2015 - 05:25 PM.

[NevirSayDie]

The statistics say that the wider the skill gap between players, the more likely it is for a match to be extremely lopsided. Cheese explained it very well in another thread that I can't remember atm. 

 

So it's not just that players are bad, it's that there's a huge spectrum of players from afk, to awful, to just bad, to decent, to good. This makes it less likely to have two closely-balanced teams, in which a good player could sway the match. About 25% of the time, the match is decently close, and one player can carry. The other 75% of the time, the teams are very lopsided, and one player can't sway the outcome of the match. 

 

Serapth, on 23 March 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

 

It may be that a massive influx of terrabad players is actually a boon to average or below average win rate players.  Perhaps it marginalizes the amount the a unicum can carry.  Who knows.  What it certainly does though is boosts the advantage gained by platooning.

 

Correct on all counts. The wider the skill gap, the more likely it is that the outcome of a match won't be influenced by one player. That means that a single 40% player will probably see his WR go up on weekends--he will be pulled toward 50% no matter how hard he fails. A 60% solo player will also be pulled toward 50% for the same reason. There are fewer matches where it's likely that one person can make a difference. 

 

All of which, of course, means that platooning=WR. 

[tjohn6041]

I have to agree to a degree.  My gameplay has changed some since the influx of sucky droid users.  For instance, the Windmill on Malinkova is a key point, that must be taken.  However, if the entire team decides to go for the swamp while I run for the windmill, I would be stupid to press on, I know what will happen when I meet the other team.  

It may make you cringe, but a lot of times, you must protect your potatoes to win, the end of battle results will prove the difference though.  

[Serapth]

tjohn6041, on 23 March 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

I have to agree to a degree.  My gameplay has changed some since the influx of sucky droid users.  For instance, the Windmill on Malinkova is a key point, that must be taken.  However, if the entire team decides to go for the swamp while I run for the windmill, I would be stupid to press on, I know what will happen when I meet the other team.  

It may make you cringe, but a lot of times, you must protect your potatoes to win, the end of battle results will prove the difference though.  

 

This may come across overly harsh, but you've basically summed up one of the major issue a lot of "good" players have with the game.  A complete lack of strategic thought. Or I suppose, flexibility is the key.

 

The ability to know when to do something stupid instead of something smart.  Also the ability to herd goats.  Those are two of the keys of minimizing the pain of stupid players.

 

I think there are a lot of players out there that are talented at the game, very talented.  They also know the "right" places to go, and do so unerringly.  It's the last part that marks the mistake...  I quite often see 60ish win rate players go off alone and die, because their team did something brain dead and they didn't support.  It's like that t-54 that goes mines even though the enemy has 4 mediums to his one.  Being able to adapt to challenging situations is a critical skill to develop.

 

That said, some teams are so epically bad that you've lost no matter what you do.

Edited by Serapth, 23 March 2015 - 06:26 PM.

[TheBigHarryBear]

This is a great less to remember.....you can't always trust stats....buck the odds and fight to win!

[SkiFletch]

On the weekends, I'm either sweating a heart pounding game which is essentially 2v7; OR I'm laughing at how easy the match is.  Often times on weekends it's like practice when the enemy team has ZERO clue.  I posted up on the flank of a JagdTiger (tier IX) peppering him with my Cent 7.  He didn't turn towards me or retreat...  He wasn't afk either.  kept wagging his gun.