Jump to content


More bad players = higher win rates (prove me wrong)


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

Letsg0Met586 #41 Posted 28 March 2015 - 05:22 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostCptCheez, on 24 March 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

 

FTFY.  Everyone wouldn't have a 50% WR, but averaged together, yes.  There would still be variance across individuals, usually ranging around 42-58% from the simulations I've run.

 

This is incorrect...if everybodys equally skilled and drives the same tanks, as battles go to infinity all peoples' win rates go to parity.  

Letsg0Met586 #42 Posted 28 March 2015 - 05:31 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostNevirSayDie, on 24 March 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

 

Right. This is because only about 25%-30% of matches are close enough for one player to sway. Because players are so bad, and others are decent, and a few are good, it's rare to find two teams that are evenly-matched. 

 

This is what people mean when they say that noobs drag their WR down. It's true that if everyone was as good as you, everyone would have a 50% WR (or rather 48% after accounting for draws). 

 

But it's also very true that bad players cause good solo players to have a lower WR. If my teammates were as good as the enemy team every match, I would have a near-100% win rate. Why? Because I would almost always be able to swing the balance of the teams from dead even (i.e. my 6 teammates are exactly as good as 6 players on their team) to winning (i.e. I'm better than their 7th player, by a lot, so we win.) 

 

Of course, that would be kind of lame, too. Which is why Blitz needs a real matchmaker. Not just a line of code that puts 14 random players across 3 tiers together. A real matchmaking algorithm that sorts players according to skill, to make the matches as close as possible. 

 

I think you're relying on an intuition which is not correct.  As the the skill spectrum widens, the ability of a single capable player to do outsize damage and singlehandedly win a game increases.  As the skill spectrum narrows, it becomes harder for any one player to make the difference as opponents are closer in skill and able to offset your contribution. In the narrow skill spectrum scenario, random chance determines the outcome more and more, although the games may "feel" more strategic and competitive and fun because they're going to often be close.  It's a false sense.

Letsg0Met586 #43 Posted 28 March 2015 - 05:54 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostKsftwe, on 24 March 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:

 

Maybe I'll use actual numbers this time around, because I actually could barely understand what I was saying back there, too. *facedesk*

 

Let's make some fundamental, theoretical assumptions, using statistics.

1) A noob has a 30% chance of victory*

2) A noob has a 50% chance of appearing on either team

3) YOU, the pro, have a 75% chance of victory*

* Both of these are if they are alone with a group of completely average, 50% WR-level players

 

MATH TIME - Remember, this is all from your point of view, as a pro with a 75% WR (dear lord that is high)

Noob as a teammate: (0.3 + 0.75) / 2 = 52.5% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.3] + 0.75) / 2 = 72.5% chance of victory

50-50 shot for each scenario; average those two and you get 62.5% chance of a victory as long as that noob stays in your games.

 

You just lowered your win ratio by quite a bit.

 

Unrealistic? Sure, let's go again.

1) A noob has a 40% chance of victory (that's reasonable)

2) A noob, again, has a 50-50 shot of appearing on either team

3) A pro has a 60% chance of victory (again, fairly reasonable)

 

MATH TIME

Noob as a teammate: (0.4 + 0.6) / 2 = 50% chance of victory

Noob as an opponent: ([1 - 0.4] + 0.6) / 2 = 60% chance of victory.

That's an average 55% chance of victory with that noob in existence. You just lowered your WR again.

 

In fact, we would see this trend go on and on until both the noob and the pro approach a WR of 50%, in which case the averages would balance out to nothing.

 

I tried to make this as straightforward as possible, so hopefully this cleared something up.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Your calculation of probabilities is just wrong so your argument is simply invalid, because your likelihood of winning a particular match is not your win rate and your team's chances of winning a particular match is not the average of the players win rates.  It is a function of the relative skill of the players actually playing in that match.  Your win rate is based on the outcome of past games against a vast assortment of players in many many random games.  It only tells us your likelihood of winning a particular match if we assume all the other players in the match (both on your team and the other team are of average skill).  If the skill level of players in the match is better than average, your likelihood of winning will go down.  If the skill levels of the players is lower than average, your likelihood of winning goes up.  To show the fallacy of your thinking consider the following.   Let's assume there are four players fighting on 2-person teams and there are no draws.  Player As win rate over many games is 60%, Player B's win rate is 60%, and player C and D have win rates of 50%, which would make them average players.  Let's assume player A and B are on one team and player C and D are on the other.  Using your math, which is wrong, the probability of the first team winning is (60+60)/2=60% and the probability of the second team winning is (50+50)/2=50%.  So your math is clearly wrong because this adds to 110%.  

Three60Mafia #44 Posted 28 March 2015 - 07:01 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13084 battles
  • 5,171
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015
I think there are definitely games you will lose, no matter what you will do. The way MM works, the odds can be stacked against you. 

Click on signature to be taken to full stat page!


christian1470 #45 Posted 28 March 2015 - 12:27 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 39218 battles
  • 4,769
  • Member since:
    10-05-2014

View PostSerapth, on 23 March 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

 

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.

It has taken me a long time to get to a point of not doing what I always do. I would just go to where I knew the Reds were, whether my team followed or not. When I died, I would tell my team, "see? They are over here." Got me a lot of spotting points, but didn't really help anyone in the long run. I used to only play against the Reds, but now, it's almost if I play against the greens. I pay much more attention to where those green dots are going and much of my strategy comes down to "how can I help them?" regardless of their choices.



itsnotpersonal #46 Posted 28 March 2015 - 02:36 PM

    It's just business

  • Players
  • 23350 battles
  • 1,793
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    06-26-2014

View PostRedBarchetta3, on 23 March 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

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.

That is why I dont play play weekends anymore. I would get my WR up during the week and then lose it all weekend. Be back Monday.


 

                     ASYLUM


NevirSayDie #47 Posted 29 March 2015 - 02:24 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 28 March 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

 

I think you're relying on an intuition which is not correct.  As the the skill spectrum widens, the ability of a single capable player to do outsize damage and singlehandedly win a game increases.  As the skill spectrum narrows, it becomes harder for any one player to make the difference as opponents are closer in skill and able to offset your contribution. In the narrow skill spectrum scenario, random chance determines the outcome more and more, although the games may "feel" more strategic and competitive and fun because they're going to often be close.  It's a false sense.

 

Intuition can be unreliable, but that doesn't mean I'm using intuition alone, or that something one believes through intuition is incorrect. 

 

Let's use AFK players as an example instead of merely unskilled players. Based on your reasoning, the more AFK players in the match, the greater the chances that one skilled player could sway the outcome. Of course, an AFK player is a more extreme detriment to his team than merely a bad player, but the math is the same. Both afk and (essentially) useless players drag their teams down; let's see what happens as we add more and more AFK players into the same pool. 

 

 

 

1 AFK player:

Spoiler

 

3 AFK players: 

Spoiler

 

6 AFK players in one match: 

Spoiler

 

tl;dr with 1 afk/useless player per match, a good player's chances of victory are 78%. With 3 in the match, his chances go down to 70%. With 6 in the match, his chances go down to 61%. The more afk/useless players per match, the closer everyone's WR gets to 50%. Bad players go up, good players go down. 

 

(One last thing: if every single teammate and enemy are AFK--that is, 13 AFK players per match--our hero's WR goes up to 100%. This DOES NOT mean that the more afk players, the higher the WR. That's an anomaly that only happens at 13 AFK players per match. At most reasonably disturbing levels of AFK/awful players, such as 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 per match, our hero's WR goes down the higher the number.) 

 

 

Edited: cleaned up some math. 



Letsg0Met586 #48 Posted 29 March 2015 - 08:05 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostNevirSayDie, on 29 March 2015 - 02:24 AM, said:

 

Intuition can be unreliable, but that doesn't mean I'm using intuition alone, or that something one believes through intuition is incorrect. 

 

Let's use AFK players as an example instead of merely unskilled players. Based on your reasoning, the more AFK players in the match, the greater the chances that one skilled player could sway the outcome. Of course, an AFK player is a more extreme detriment to his team than merely a bad player, but the math is the same. Both afk and (essentially) useless players drag their teams down; let's see what happens as we add more and more AFK players into the same pool. 

 

 

 

1 AFK player:

Spoiler

 

3 AFK players: 

Spoiler

 

6 AFK players in one match: 

Spoiler

 

tl;dr with 1 afk/useless player per match, a good player's chances of victory are 78%. With 3 in the match, his chances go down to 70%. With 6 in the match, his chances go down to 61%. The more afk/useless players per match, the closer everyone's WR gets to 50%. Bad players go up, good players go down. 

 

(One last thing: if every single teammate and enemy are AFK--that is, 13 AFK players per match--our hero's WR goes up to 100%. This DOES NOT mean that the more afk players, the higher the WR. That's an anomaly that only happens at 13 AFK players per match. At most reasonably disturbing levels of AFK/awful players, such as 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 per match, our hero's WR goes down the higher the number.) 

 

 

Edited: cleaned up some math. 

 

Your analysis is faulty for two principal reasons.  First your math is wrong.  Except for the 1 AFK example above, your probabilities calculated for matches with different numbers of afk players on different teams are incorrect.  Second, you make a number of assumptions in here which are not accurate.  In particular, you assume that the better team always wins.  If I am understanding you correctly, you are scoring team skills by assessing a +2 to the "awesome player" and +1 to other "average" players and a 0 to AFK players, then totaling the team skill scores for teams under different distributions and assuming that if one team has more skill points than another, they always win.  You then use your probabilities (which as I say are wrong, except for the 1 AFK example) to determine probabilities of wins or losses based on this "better team always wins" approach.  It is not true that the best team always wins.  In fact, relative differentials in skills between teams will drive probabilities of victories, but there are always chances of upsets.  The greater the skill differential between teams, the more likely the more highly skilled team will win, but again, the underdog still has a chance, depending on random factors.  The closer the teams in skill, the more randomness will play a role and the easier for the lesser team to win.  Furthermore, you also have to assess the importance of the skill differentials of the teams against the overall mass of the battle.  That is, the probabilities in a 2-average-tanks-versus-1 average-tank battle are vastly different than the probabilities in a 101-average-tanks-versus-100-average-tanks battle, even though both battles show the same gross differential of +1 to the more numerous team.  As you add AFK tanks into a battle, you are essentially decreasing the number of active tanks in the battle, and that makes any differential that much more decisive to the outcome. 

 

I am attaching to this message a handmarked table setting out what I believe to be the correct probabilities for different AFK combinations for 0-6 AFK and showing the further analysis as follows.  I got tired after 6 :). For ease, I am adopting your scoring system to assess team strength, assuming you have one "awesome" player who is worth +2 and assuming everybody else is a 1, except for the AFK players, which are 0s (although I note that an AFK player is not entirely useless insofar as he will (1) spot and (2) distract the enemy and draw enemy fire).  Where I put "[X,Y]," I am assessing the scenario where the awesome player's team has X AFK tanks and the other team of average players has Y AFK tanks.  The probability weighted skill differentials are set off in parenthesis.  Hopefully it is clear enough.  I do not attempt to assess probabilities of victories as I think you would need to do some sort of regression analysis to figure out how skill differentials (and different measures of skill) actually predict probability of victory.  Instead, I simply look at the probability weighted skill differentials of the teams (which should be equal to the expected skill differential of the "awesome player's" team in any battle under the stated AFK condition) and use that figure to calculate a ratio of the expected skill differential against total non-AFK tanks (i.e., moving tanks) in the battle to calculate the relative decisiveness of the differential.  I believe that as this ratio increases, the awesome player's team's likelihood of victory will go up, though I can't say what the precise probability would be.  The ratio will go to infinity (and the likelihood of the awesome player's team winning to 100%) when all the other tanks are AFK.

 

As you can see, for AFK figures of 0-6, the awesome player's team's expected skill differential steadily increases as you increase AFK tanks, with the sole exception of the step from 2 to 3, where there is a reduction due to the relative weightings the probabilities create.  I believe this is a "one-off" special case and will not occur again if you run all the way to all AFK other than the awesome player [EDIT: THIS APPARENT DISCREPANCY AT AFK=3 WAS A RESULT OF AN ERROR ON MY PART.  I HAVE SINCE CORRECTED IT AND THIS ANOMALY GOES AWAY.  SEE BOTTOM OF POST.].  Furthermore, when you calculate the ratio I describe above, it steadily goes up, even from the step from AFK 2 to AFK 3

 

Now for alcohol.

 

(Edited for typos and to correct error in data for AFK=3)
 
NOTE THAT I AM UNABLE PRESENTLY TO UPLOAD MY CORRECTED ANALYSIS TO SHOW THE CORRECT INFORMATION FOR SCENARIO [0,3] DUE TO UPLOAD MEMORY LIMITS ON MY ACCOUNT.  THE ERROR IS IN THE 5th AND 6th COLUMNS FOR THAT SCENARIO ROW.  THE TEAM SKILL DIFFERENTIAL SHOULD BE SHOWN AS +4 RATHER THAN +3.  WITH THAT, THE CORRECTED PROBABILITY WEIGHTED DIFFERENTIAL (THAT IS, THE EXPECTED TEAM DIFFERENTIAL) FOR AFK=3 BECOMES 1.230 AND THE RATIO OF THAT FIGURE TO NON-AFK TANKS IN BATTLE (i.e., 14-3=11) BECOMES 0.112.

Attached Files

  • Attached File   Afk tank analysis.pdf   387.46K

Edited by Letsg0Met586, 30 March 2015 - 12:31 AM.


NevirSayDie #49 Posted 30 March 2015 - 03:48 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 29 March 2015 - 08:05 PM, said:

 

Good thoughts...

 

First off, I really appreciate your thoughts on this! Thinking about game design is as fun as actually playing for me, so I get excited when someone creates a truly intellectual discussion about something like this. 

 

Second, I apologize for using crude guesstimates rather than taking the five extra minutes to do the math correctly. Thank you for taking the time to calculate the actual numbers. It was lazy of me, but it also revealed some underlying disrespect in my personality that I didn't like seeing. I feel it's disrespectful to disagree with someone but be sloppy with one's argument, which is exactly what I did. 

 

Third, I realize that because I used sloppy non-math, it will be harder for any points I might make in the future to be taken seriously, so I won't belabor anything. I'll just say I think it's possible that we're both correct, in a way. I absolutely agree that the more afk players per match, the higher the influence ratio goes for the active players. 

 

However, I also think that using a mean average reflecting that ratio paints an incomplete picture. Even though the ratio goes up as the number of "normal" players goes down, I think that may reflect the many lopsided wins the hero will get--7 kills to 0, or 7-1, or 7-2. When he loses, it will tend to be more close, since he counts for two players. I think this is reflected in your calculations as well: the greater skill differences favor the hero, but there's a significant and growing percentage of unfavorable situations. 

 

In the first two calculations, with 0 and 1 afk players, there are 0% unfavorable situations. This doesn't mean the hero will win 100% of the time, of course. But still, consider that at 2 afk players, there's a 19.2% chance of an unfavorable situation. The hero might still win the match if he can play as well as 3 normal players combined, but it will be much harder. At 4 afk players, there was a 7% chance of a badly unfavorable situation, but also a 36.7% chance of two equal teams. We have to assume that the hero will only win half of those, of course, and they are only equal because the hero counts for 2 players. His teammates are still worse than the other team, only he makes up for it half of the time. In this scenario, an additional 18.35% of the losses he takes are the fault of his team. After all, he played as well as 2 normal players, but in a close match his teammates let him down and he lost. That makes a slightly higher chance--25.35%--of a frustrating loss caused by his afk teammates. The pattern is rough, since we're using only 3 levels--afk, normal, and awesome--of skill. 

 

Since there are many different "levels" of poor players, I think the pattern does even out as you add a more highly-varied mix of good, decent, bad, awful, and afk players. For example, a truly legendary player who is worth 3 "normal" players would likely win every single match if his teammates were as skilled as the enemy players. That's a 9-7 differential. But move down to 3 afk players on his team, 0 on the other, and suddenly it's a 6-7 disadvantage. His win rate moves down by 7%, since it was practically at 100% before. 

 

Or, a "pretty good player" might be worth 1.5 normal players, and then of course would be far less likely to carry his team at a disadvantage. Or, the "legendary" player might be the bottom tier; with two evenly-matched teams, he would still be able to sway the balance toward winning, but give just 1 useless player to his team and suddenly his chances of carrying go way down. 

 

So to sum it up, I don't think a higher mean average skill differential ratio necessarily translates to a higher win rate, although it might. Also, in retrospect, I seem to be most concerned with what percentage of matches are a true disadvantage for a good player. That doesn't necessarily translate to a lower win rate either, but it very well could (example being the non-existent "legendary" player who only loses if his team has 3 afk players on it). 


Edited by NevirSayDie, 30 March 2015 - 03:50 AM.


anonym_3ALrcwVs605t #50 Posted 30 March 2015 - 04:09 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,459
  • Member since:
    04-21-2019
This claim is complete and utter [edited]. I have been held back by 2/5 of a percent because of bad players.

Three60Mafia #51 Posted 30 March 2015 - 05:14 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13084 battles
  • 5,171
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015

Everyone online right now is a goddamn sub-50% WR scrub. Literally have teams that all die within first minute, don't leave spawn, don't do any damage. 

 

This has been the worst [edited]weekend I've ever seen. 


People with 4000 battles and 35% WR everywhere, just complete and utter imbeciles. 

I tried to carry with 3000k damage games, 4 in a row, and I just couldn't. Any tier. 


UGHHHH!


Edited by Three60Mafia, 30 March 2015 - 05:15 AM.

Click on signature to be taken to full stat page!


Letsg0Met586 #52 Posted 30 March 2015 - 12:07 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostIOwnTheWorld1994, on 30 March 2015 - 04:09 AM, said:

This claim is complete and utter [edited]. I have been held back by 2/5 of a percent because of bad players.

 

Assuming that the matchmaker is making random teams (as I say above, may be a bad assumption), however much bad players on your teams have held you back, bad players on the opposing team have boosted you.  People will have a natural tendency to ascribe their successes to themselves and their failures to others, particularly when the opposing teams bumbling is harder to see than your own teammates bumbling.



NevirSayDie #53 Posted 30 March 2015 - 05:41 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 30 March 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

 

Assuming that the matchmaker is making random teams (as I say above, may be a bad assumption), however much bad players on your teams have held you back, bad players on the opposing team have boosted you.  People will have a natural tendency to ascribe their successes to themselves and their failures to others, particularly when the opposing teams bumbling is harder to see than your own teammates bumbling.

 

The matchmaker is 100% random. It has two parameters: tank tier and platoon (if there are two platoons in a similar tier range in queue, the MM will put one on each team). 

 



Letsg0Met586 #54 Posted 30 March 2015 - 06:49 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostNevirSayDie, on 30 March 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:

 

The matchmaker is 100% random. It has two parameters: tank tier and platoon (if there are two platoons in a similar tier range in queue, the MM will put one on each team). 

 

 

I'm curious how you know it is random.  I have an idea of how to test this, but haven't bothered as it is time consuming. 

NevirSayDie #55 Posted 30 March 2015 - 07:20 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 30 March 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

 

I'm curious how you know it is random.  I have an idea of how to test this, but haven't bothered as it is time consuming. 

 

WG released a statement about the matchmaker a while back. I can't seem to find it atm, but it basically said that there was no parameter for tank type, skill, experience, or anything like that. 

 

Some players believe that WG is lying, and the MM is more complicated than they say. But I can't believe any company would claim to have a worse system than they actually do, so I'm taking them at their word for now. 



CptCheez #56 Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:00 PM

    This Space Intentionally Left Blank

  • Players
  • 15398 battles
  • 6,798
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostNevirSayDie, on 30 March 2015 - 02:20 PM, said:

WG released a statement about the matchmaker a while back. I can't seem to find it atm, but it basically said that there was no parameter for tank type, skill, experience, or anything like that. 

 

It's in Overlord's blog.

http://overlord-wot.blogspot.com/2014/07/wotb-blitz-matchmaker.html


"When the going gets tough and the stomach acids flow, 
The cold wind of conformity is nipping at your nose.
When some trendy new atrocity has brought you to your knees
Come with us we'll sail the Seas of Cheese."


NevirSayDie #57 Posted 30 March 2015 - 08:58 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10005 battles
  • 1,411
  • [TAN60]
  • Member since:
    03-19-2012

View PostCptCheez, on 30 March 2015 - 08:00 PM, said:

 

Thanks! Wasn't there another more recent statement released as well, around the time when tier V and VI went to -1/+2 MM?  

ats1080 #58 Posted 30 March 2015 - 09:08 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1453 battles
  • 683
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostNevirSayDie, on 30 March 2015 - 03:58 PM, said:

 

Thanks! Wasn't there another more recent statement released as well, around the time when tier V and VI went to -1/+2 MM?  

 

I looked, couldnt find it.  If you find it you would help solve another debate though.

Letsg0Met586 #59 Posted 30 March 2015 - 11:37 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8070 battles
  • 181
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostCptCheez, on 30 March 2015 - 08:00 PM, said:

 

it's interesting. I see nothing in that blog post which indicates the teams are formed randomly. It just explains the basic constraints to forming teams. Granted, I didn't watch the video explaining the pc matchmaker. 

CptCheez #60 Posted 31 March 2015 - 03:56 AM

    This Space Intentionally Left Blank

  • Players
  • 15398 battles
  • 6,798
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostLetsg0Met586, on 30 March 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

it's interesting. I see nothing in that blog post which indicates the teams are formed randomly. It just explains the basic constraints to forming teams. Granted, I didn't watch the video explaining the pc matchmaker. 

 

Perhaps you should. :)


"When the going gets tough and the stomach acids flow, 
The cold wind of conformity is nipping at your nose.
When some trendy new atrocity has brought you to your knees
Come with us we'll sail the Seas of Cheese."





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users