AdrianK

Need a good explainer of random distribution for Pubbehs

9 posts in this topic

I'm a math/stats noob, but I need help explaining some math/stats concepts to some pubbehs.  

Can someone please point me in the direction of a good explanation that would answer the bolded part of the question below?  In my own noob way I believe it's just normal random distribution (if that's what it's called?)

Given this site is about denying the deniers, and this will have come up a gazillion times before, I imagine there's some good resources already out there.  

Please note: resources with pictures and a low vocabulary are probably going to be the most effective.

Quote

If MM is supposed to be Randomly selecting teams and not taking WR/HR etc.. into account why are we getting unbalanced teams, is MM flawed by design/bad coding or is MM designed to "rig" the games randomly with assistance of RNG and other game mechanics. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True random (and pseudorandom) doesn't imply equal distribution or uniformity at all.

quasirandom1.jpg

If you want completely balanced teams (tank variation, player skill, what have you), the MM would in fact have to be less random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person you quoted assumed that randomness = balance and he is right and wrong at the same time.

He can test his hypothesis easily for himself by rolling 15 dice and adding them up, then repeat the process and compare both sums. This example disregards WR (each player is represented by a random unweighted d6).

I think no sane person would expect that paired sums are always the same but it is likely that they are around a sum of 52 or 53 often and, even better, if you do this test about 10000 times, the distribution of unbalanced results tends to be the same.

In that sense rendomness is indeed balanced in so far that every player that plays enough games tends to have the same single imbalances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, i find the opposite question more realistic: "if MM is random, how can you expect balanced teams?". But over a large number of games, it "evens out". 

I have a friend that doesn't believe in this, and is always shouting that MM and RNG are rigged (and because of it, he recently uninstalled wot :D ). But anyway, here is the very simple example:

You flip a coin (let's assume the coin is not "rigged" in any way). If you flip it 2 times, and both times are tails, you can jump to a conclusion that a coin is rigged, but the sample is small. But if you throw the same coin 10 000 times, the result will converge to 50/50 distribution of heads and tails. 

What people complain about the most, is those horrible losing streaks. My biggest, recorded one is i think 18 or 19 losses in a row :) . But over more than 40 000 matches, this is expected to happen. You can actually calculate, very precise, what is the probability for that to happen. Same with the coin, when you toss it 10 000 times, you will certainly have long streaks of heads and/or tails, but over time it will even out.

Same with WoT. A single match is rarely balanced. But tens of thousands of them are very balanced. There was a thread on WoTLabs, where OP explained with calculations and formulas, how many matches exactly it is needed a to have a Win Rate stats for a player that make sense, and is comparable to another player.. And i think the number was 1000. 

 

I hope you find this useful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more relevant example:

You have 20 balls, 10 red and 10 blue. You randomly pick 10 balls out of a hat. You end up with 7 reds and 3 blues.

Your gut says the balls must be rigged so that your hand intuitively grab reds more than blues, because you assume you'll get 5 reds and blues each. So you get new balls and try again. This time you end up with 8 blues and 2 reds.

The balls were in fact identical in all but color; the hat is just a hat. You have no way of telling what ball you're getting before pulling it out. The ball-picking process is completely random, it's only your own faulty intuition that expected to get equal number of reds and blues.

 

This is when you realize the ball-picking game is repetitive and mind-numbing, you stop relying on chance entirely and start rigging the game to your favor (aka getting better to carry 14 bots).

 

 

 

 

Law of large numbers, etc etc... It's the gambler's fallacy that people keep falling into when they keep thinking "I'll get better teams next match". Just because you've had 10 losses in a row doesn't automatically mean you will definitely win your next match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 3MAJ86 said:

MM and RNG are rigged

He is (or better was) actually right. The game is designed in a way that makes it impossible for tomatoes to always lose and for unicorns to always win. Thats certainly some sort of rigging.

3 hours ago, Haswell said:

the gambler's fallacy

Yes, mankind has been tought through uncounted millenia to keenly observe cause and effect in order to carry the planet more. But randomness defies this and most people can not comprehend this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

14 hours ago, Jaegaer said:

The game is designed in a way that makes it impossible for tomatoes to always lose and for unicorns to always win. Thats certainly some sort of rigging.

Ha, well, the inherent nature of the game allows the outcome of a battle to be influenced by the player's relative skill - which amounts to "tomatoes to always lose and for unicorns to always win"; but (obviously) when people talk about "rigging" the implication is a conscious desire by WG to screw them over for various reasons- which usually don't include skill.

On that basis I'm definitely not a ""MM is rigged" believer.

You'll have to forgive me, I don't often post in this circle so I'll be cautious how I interpret your tone :)

As for our forum pubbeh,s I'll give them the hat example and point them at the law of large numbers.

 

As thanks, please accept these memes I did as part of the argument against the likelihood of their being rigging.   I pointed out that such a system would be overly complex and expensive - that's assuming you could even design one conceptually...

 

HzQ6RbT.png

O01I3Vt.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AdrianK said:

Ha, well, the inherent nature of the game allows the outcome of a battle to be influenced by the player's relative skill - which amounts to "tomatoes to always lose and for unicorns to always win"; but (obviously) when people talk about "rigging" the implication is a conscious desire by WG to screw them over for various reasons- which usually don't include skill.

It's all about moral responsibility and blame. People want to take all the credit when good things happen, but tries to avoid all the blame when something goes wrong.

They say the game is rigged to minimize the possibility that they are personally at fault, by blaming the system. Or hackers. Or the other team. Or their own teammates. They rarely blame themselves and tends to dismiss the possibility that it's their own fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AdrianK said:

when people talk about "rigging" the implication is a conscious desire by WG to screw them over

Agreed and, yes, this is actually ridiculous to assume.

The nature of randomness can seem like rigging to some people and WoT (WAY more than WoWS for example) has some really toxic gameplay (aim aim aim aim aim miss - opponent KV-2 onehits you unaimed from full speed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.