Jump to content
Gmoney838

Still don't believe in baddie favoured RNG?

Recommended Posts

Null hypothesis is that they don't, which is supported by mathematical theory (read: regression to the mean).

Your proposal is that they do, which is backed by a "feeling that it might be".

 

Your requirement is twofold:

1. Demonstrate that the damage distribution of a POPULATION of lower stat players is higher than a similar population of higher stat players

2. Demonstrate that there is a negative correlation between a players stats and his damage distribution.

 

All while proving statistical significance.

 

You have done neither, unless "feeling it may be true" counts.

 

Regression to the mean has explained all phenomena rather elegantly.

 

The burden of proof lies he who asserts a claim.

 

You are the one making the claim here, it is YOUR job to prove it is true, not our job to prove it is false.

 

"I win 40% of my games because MM is rigged against me, you can't say I'm wrong!"

 

"I'm better than you even though I win less because WG rigs the game in your favor"

You sound like a fucking denier.

GTFO denier.

 To quote you... "The burden of proof lies he who asserts a claim." Why is it ok for you to claim the game is not rigged in anyway without proof when it is not ok to question it without being "retardedly wrong"? (another quote of yours)

 

 

I am just here playing devils advocate to prove a point. You claim the game is not rigged like it is written in stone. You say the burden of proof is on me. Why do you not have to prove your side? Please show me something from WG that implicitly states the game is 100% fair and that there is no help or hindrance given to any players. If WG stated this as fact, then it would be as you say with the burden of proof being on those that disagree.  As it stands now, it is what you BELIEVE vs what I BELIEVE since WG has never officially confirmed or denied the facts. It does not matter if more people THINK the same thing as you or not. Just because the majority THINKS it is a certain way does not mean they are correct and must be proven wrong. Your arguments are no more valid than mine. This is the point I try to make to all of you and none of you seem to get it. You claim to be so smart and yet refuse to step outside the box and see things from all angles. For someone that tries to make themselves out as highly intelligent, you are very closed minded. Don't you see I am not trying to argue the point. I am asking the same thing I have forever. Why does your side of the debate assume you know the truth and it is up to the other side to prove you wrong? You have yet to post any proof that the other side is wrong and yet you constantly insult and name call anyone who disagrees with you.

 

I love when people like you call me a denier. Look at my stats. I do fine whether WG messes with the game or not.  If they do, it only means those of us who do well are even better and those that suck are even worse than they appear. It changes nothing in the end. I like the game with all it's flaws and will continue to play.

 

So please continue to respond in the same predictable manner. "I'm right, you are wrong.....various insults..." BTW, the only denier in this conversation is you. You deny that anyone but you could be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you don't think that all opinions are equally valid. Some things are subjective (i like blue better than green) and are not subject to dispute, other things are not subjective and are therefore subject to scrutiny.

 

If someone was to post here, "It's my opinion that every SPG in the game is capable of carrying hard, and any good player can consistently achieve a 65% win rate while solo-pubbing arty", that is obviously not true. No matter how much that person believes their opinion it is simply wrong. If someone actually posted that they would get laughed off of wotlabs, and you would be laughing along with everyone else.

 

Just because something is your opinion doesn't mean it's correct, and when you state your opinion on a public forum it is subject to being disputed and reviewed. If you don't want people to comment on, and possibly dispute, your opinion don't post it in a forum dedicated to the examination of game mechanics.

Take your own advice. You side is only an opinion at this point too. This is the point I try to make all the time. Neither side has definitive proof. Until someone does, your opinion is no more valid than mine. You say I disagree with the known, published info on the subject. Please show me an officially published statement from WG that says the game is not rigged in anyway. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Read my above response to Echelon to understand what I am saying. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence God doesnt exist, so he probably does exist because why wouldnt he?! He must exist because it makes explaining things a lot easier. M i rite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take your own advice. You side is only an opinion at this point too.

No, it's not "only an opinion", it is information published by the people who make the game. The only actual evidence that exists on this matter, to date, is the testimony by the people who wrote the code. So if anyone wants to assert that this published evidence is not true, then the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to disagree with the only extant evidence.

 

Please show me an officially published statement from WG that says the game is not rigged in anyway.

It's hard to imagine that you can you be in SIMP and be unaware of the information that WG has published on the MM and how it works. If you were a newbie on the WG forums I would gladly provide this for you. But you are an experienced tanker and this is WoTLabs, I'm not going to do your homework for you and feed you with a silver spoon. WG has published both written and video explanations of how the MM works, get off your lazy ass and go find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These forums were explicitly established to examine ideas, to use valid data and rational logic and to examine whether those ideas are right or wrong (or whether the correctness of them can be established).

Whilst i completely agree with your statement... The god awful "shenanigans" section would beg to differ.

There is less useful discussion and more useless clique drivel on this forum day by day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not "only an opinion", it is information published by the people who make the game. The only actual evidence that exists on this matter, to date, is the testimony by the people who wrote the code. So if anyone wants to assert that this published evidence is not true, then the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to disagree with the only extant evidence.

 

It's hard to imagine that you can you be in SIMP and be unaware of the information that WG has published on the MM and how it works. If you were a newbie on the WG forums I would gladly provide this for you. But you are an experienced tanker and this is WoTLabs, I'm not going to do your homework for you and feed you with a silver spoon. WG has published both written and video explanations of how the MM works, get off your lazy ass and go find it.

You WON'T show me proof? or you can't?.....I have looked since this topic started being debated years ago. I have found nothing official yet. It is the reason I ask this same question every time. So i reassert the same question. Please show me the proof that the accepted norm is true and I am completely wrong. As for the MM, the only thing I have ever seen on it from WG is that new tanks get to be top tier  for a few games to feel more powerful and winning more gives you a better chance to be bottom tier while losing will help you be top tier more often. The only other official thing I have seen is the info on the MM patent which includes strange things that everyone says"Just because they are there, doesn't mean they use it."   Can you finally understand why I keep asking the same question? I have yet to be shown any tangible proof for either side of the argument. I am a big fan of evidence and the only evidence I have is from personal experience. It may be enough to make me wonder about things, but it is not enough to be definitive either way.

 

So back to the insults....Since you guys can't respond in any other way. I understand it is the most basic defense mechanism and people resort to it when they have nothing else to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50%er and 59%er sat with 85mm guns shooting the weak point on the back of the e100's turret in a training room. After about 200 rounds each the 59%er had racked up more damage by a small margin. Granted damage is only part of what RNG governs, but there certainly wasn't any pubbie RNG being displayed in that training room. Of course the tinfoilers will probably suggest that pubs use different RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote you... "The burden of proof lies he who asserts a claim." Why is it ok for you to claim the game is not rigged in anyway without proof when it is not ok to question it without being "retardedly wrong"? (another quote of yours)

For the same reason that we have "innocent until proven guilty".

You cannot prove a negative by inductive reasoning alone.

I am just here playing devils advocate to prove a point. You claim the game is not rigged like it is written in stone. You say the burden of proof is on me. Why do you not have to prove your side? Please show me something from WG that implicitly states the game is 100% fair and that there is no help or hindrance given to any players. If WG stated this as fact, then it would be as you say with the burden of proof being on those that disagree.  As it stands now, it is what you BELIEVE vs what I BELIEVE since WG has never officially confirmed or denied the facts. It does not matter if more people THINK the same thing as you or not. Just because the majority THINKS it is a certain way does not mean they are correct and must be proven wrong. Your arguments are no more valid than mine. This is the point I try to make to all of you and none of you seem to get it. You claim to be so smart and yet refuse to step outside the box and see things from all angles. For someone that tries to make themselves out as highly intelligent, you are very closed minded. Don't you see I am not trying to argue the point. I am asking the same thing I have forever. Why does your side of the debate assume you know the truth and it is up to the other side to prove you wrong? You have yet to post any proof that the other side is wrong and yet you constantly insult and name call anyone who disagrees with you.

You are not playing devils advocate, you are here because you honestly believe it.

THe burden of proof is on you who asserts that your observations are correct.

WG has laid it out very simply, my 128mm is stated to do 490 average, a 44%ers 128mm is stated to average at 490, your 128mm is stated to average at 490. That is WG's statement, and it is YOUR responsible to disprove it.

 

I love when people like you call me a denier. Look at my stats. I do fine whether WG messes with the game or not.  If they do, it only means those of us who do well are even better and those that suck are even worse than they appear. It changes nothing in the end. I like the game with all it's flaws and will continue to play.

 

So please continue to respond in the same predictable manner. "I'm right, you are wrong.....various insults..." BTW, the only denier in this conversation is you. You deny that anyone but you could be right.

Shit logic makes a denier, not stats.

P.S. By your logic, I can say that your stats are meaningless.

GTFO Denier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.  As it stands now, it is what you BELIEVE vs what I BELIEVE since WG has never officially confirmed or denied the facts.

 

This isn't theology 101.

 

Sure I could say the Sun is coming up in the West next sunday, but that don't make it so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason that we have "innocent until proven guilty".

You cannot prove a negative by inductive reasoning alone.

You are not playing devils advocate, you are here because you honestly believe it.

THe burden of proof is on you who asserts that your observations are correct.

WG has laid it out very simply, my 128mm is stated to do 490 average, a 44%ers 128mm is stated to average at 490, your 128mm is stated to average at 490. That is WG's statement, and it is YOUR responsible to disprove it.

 

Shit logic makes a denier, not stats.

P.S. By your logic, I can say that your stats are meaningless.

GTFO Denier

Fuck you Echelon you fucking know it all cock sucker. See, I can call people names too.

 

No, no, you can't.

 

Next time is an RO.

 

~P_M

 

 

You think you are so smart, but not you or anyone else can take the time to point me at your proof so I can see it and go "OK I am wrong". If you are so god dam sure of yourself, why will none of you show me what I am asking for? I simply want to see the proof that makes you think what you do. I shared on more than one occasion why I think what I think. Why can't any of you do the same? How hard is it to show me a link? I won't argue facts and will gladly admit I am wrong if just one of you would show me. I guess it is easier to call me a denier since you don't have it.  Doesn't change anything. How about showing me something that will change my mind. Wouldn't you love for me to say sorry, you are right? I bet that would make you nut in your pants, so why not SHOW ME YOUR PROOF. If you have nothing,then I guess I can expect more name calling.

 

BTW, it is hilarious that you think you know what I think....Please tell me more. Because you actually have no idea what I think WG does in the game.  No wonder so many people think you are a douche. And as for stats, they are meaningless. They only matter to me to see if i am doing better or worse. They are useless for anything else. You can't even really compare to other players since there are so many variables like tooning, tank selection, and the tiers you play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think you are so smart, but not you or anyone else can take the time to point me at your proof so I can see it and go "OK I am wrong".

You were already shown officially stated gun stats.

In the other thread you were also shown a previously done testing on this matter (http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/204501-damage-distribution-real-measurements/)

Is that evidence still not enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to imagine that you can you be in SIMP and be unaware of the information that WG has published on the MM and how it works. If you were a newbie on the WG forums I would gladly provide this for you.

 

http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Battle_Mechanics

http://worldoftanks.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/

 

I don't see any baddie favored RNG in any of them. I've access to a red, green and purple account and all of them seem to have same statistics displayed for average damage, penetration, aim time, accuracy etc. for same guns so I'm quite certain, that if you're trying to actually prove that baddie RNG is a real deal then you're the one that's responsible on providing that proof.

 

 

If you have nothing, than you are no more right or wrong than me.

 

 

Are the above links enough or do you want SerB or Storm to make an official post that baddie favored RNG doesn't exist? I don't know any Russian and take FTR with a grain of salt so you can go dig through that yourself. Sadly I can't show you the source code either. Even if a lot of games level the playing field for good and bad players I don't see it happening in tanks, it's a fucking miracle if a red player ends up as the top xp and/or damage player of a match where there are greens and above present who don't YOLO rush or get one shotted by 183/WTFE100/clickers at the beginning.

 

Didn't you also contradict your own statement that the game favors baddies in ?

One game, I don't even have to aim at all to hit every shot, while the next, I can't hit a tank that is 50 m away fully aimed after shooting 5+ times.

how is that RNG favoring baddies? Even by WGs own rating you're definitely not a baddie yet you still get this god like RNG at times. That would rather imply that RNG for players is defined when the match begins and you're not working hard enough to make the bad RNG work, hard to say without replays.

 

EDIT: how do I edit in the authors to quotes?

Edited by Sinistah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck you Echelon you fucking know it all cock sucker. See, I can call people names too. You think you are so smart, but not you or anyone else can take the time to point me at your proof so I can see it and go "OK I am wrong". If you are so god dam sure of yourself, why will none of you show me what I am asking for? I simply want to see the proof that makes you think what you do. I shared on more than one occasion why I think what I think. Why can't any of you do the same? How hard is it to show me a link? I won't argue facts and will gladly admit I am wrong if just one of you would show me. I guess it is easier to call me a denier since you don't have it.  Doesn't change anything. How about showing me something that will change my mind. Wouldn't you love for me to say sorry, you are right? I bet that would make you nut in your pants, so why not SHOW ME YOUR PROOF. If you have nothing,then I guess I can expect more name calling.

 

BTW, it is hilarious that you think you know what I think....Please tell me more. Because you actually have no idea what I think WG does in the game.  No wonder so many people think you are a douche. And as for stats, they are meaningless. They only matter to me to see if i am doing better or worse. They are useless for anything else. You can't even really compare to other players since there are so many variables like tooning, tank selection, and the tiers you play.

When 10 people tell you you're wrong ... chances are it's probably true ... no RNG there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck you Echelon you fucking know it all cock sucker. See, I can call people names too. You think you are so smart, but not you or anyone else can take the time to point me at your proof so I can see it and go "OK I am wrong". If you are so god dam sure of yourself, why will none of you show me what I am asking for? I simply want to see the proof that makes you think what you do. I shared on more than one occasion why I think what I think. Why can't any of you do the same? How hard is it to show me a link? I won't argue facts and will gladly admit I am wrong if just one of you would show me. I guess it is easier to call me a denier since you don't have it.  Doesn't change anything. How about showing me something that will change my mind. Wouldn't you love for me to say sorry, you are right? I bet that would make you nut in your pants, so why not SHOW ME YOUR PROOF. If you have nothing,then I guess I can expect more name calling.

We are the null hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you who trumpets your post.

This is what WG shows my gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

This is what WG shows your gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

This is what WG shows a 70%er his gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

This is what WG shows a 40%er his gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

That's WG's claim, my gun is equal to your gun is equal to a 70's gun is equal to a 40's gun.

You are challenging this.

The burden of proof is on you to show that WG is lying to me when they show "490" average.

 

As I have said, you are required to

1. Demonstrate that the damage distribution of a POPULATION of lower stat players is higher than a similar population of higher stat players

2. Demonstrate that there is a negative correlation between a players stats and his damage distribution.

All while proving statistical significance.

 

If you can prove those, then WG is indeed lying that "490" is a correct provided value as they have written.

 

You wanted WG's statement on the gun, you've been given one.

 

BTW, it is hilarious that you think you know what I think....Please tell me more. Because you actually have no idea what I think WG does in the game.

I stand corrected, I'm now pretty sure that you do not think.

 

No wonder so many people think you are a douche.

Last I checked, my being a douche doesn't affect my evidence, it also does not change the fact that you are a denier.

 

I love when people like you call me a denier. Look at my stats. I do fine whether WG messes with the game or not.

And as for stats, they are meaningless.

It's nice to see you have a consistent stand on your stats too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently running the T-34, Type T-34, and KV-1 with the 57mm/85dmg gun for the T34 event. I should easily have several hundred, if not thousands of shots recorded in replays so it should be possible to see if I get shit tier RNG with that thing or not.

 

Kiwi mode activate:

Gimme goaldz and I'll sort through them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You WON'T show me proof? or you can't?.....I have looked since this topic started being debated years ago. I have found nothing official yet. It is the reason I ask this same question every time.

Answer = won't. I definitely can, I will not.

 

I refuse to find this publicly available information for someone who's been looking for it for "years" and somehow has missed it. (Hint: worldoftanks.com has lots of stuff published by Wargaming, including both text and video).

 

This is not one of those subjective questions like "which is better, blue or green?".  Wargaming has absolutely published information explaining the MM and how it works. The existence of this published information is a fact, there's no excuse for you not being able to find it.

 

the only thing I have ever seen on it from WG is that ... and winning more gives you a better chance to be bottom tier while losing will help you be top tier more often.

This is false. Wargaming has categorically stated that the MM does not adjust your top/bottom position based on your winning/losing. That is taken from the patent application, and Wargaming has explicitly stated that that part of the patent application is not used in the game code.

 

Once again, you need to do your own homework, find and read the original source material in which Wargaming has posted their statements and assertions about how the game works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: how do I edit in the authors to quotes?

 

Posting it here to detract from the thread.  Also because there are probably other people that want to know the same thing.

 

The top left hand of the button bar has a 'light switch'.  If you toggle that it will show you the text behind the quotes rather than making it look pretty:

 

EDIT: how do I edit in the authors to quotes?

 

 

Then you can look at an example quote and you have two options:

 

1) One option is to just create a line (the post, timestamp, and names are optional):

     

2) Another option is to click the 'quote' button on a post, and then copy the text elsewhere to save it

3) If all the quotes are on one page, you can use the 'multiquote' button

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the null hypothesis, the burden of proof is on you who trumpets your post.

This is what WG shows my gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

This is what WG shows your gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

This is what WG shows a 70%er his gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

This is what WG shows a 40%er his gun is:

ZToCmxl.jpg?1

That's WG's claim, my gun is equal to your gun is equal to a 70's gun is equal to a 40's gun.

You are challenging this.

The burden of proof is on you to show that WG is lying to me when they show "490" average.

 

As I have said, you are required to

1. Demonstrate that the damage distribution of a POPULATION of lower stat players is higher than a similar population of higher stat players

2. Demonstrate that there is a negative correlation between a players stats and his damage distribution.

All while proving statistical significance.

 

If you can prove those, then WG is indeed lying that "490" is a correct provided value as they have written.

 

You wanted WG's statement on the gun, you've been given one.

 

I stand corrected, I'm now pretty sure that you do not think.

 

Last I checked, my being a douche doesn't affect my evidence, it also does not change the fact that you are a denier.

 

It's nice to see you have a consistent stand on your stats too.

The only proof I have is that my E100 averaged 673 damage over almost 200 games. I tested it a few months after the post by Pope Shizzle got people debating the subject. I was curious to find out for myself since it is hard to know what is true on the internet. It was enough to convince me that at least my E100 was not getting it's advertised average damage. I can't tell you why, just that it does. Can you give me an intelligent explanation how such a large sample could produce such results since they contradict the excepted norm? Did WG calculate that gun wrong? Are the in game numbers messed up? Did a coder miss a space or digit in the code? This is why I said you don't know what I think. I don't believe that RNG  is 100% bad or good for anyone. I know I occasionally get shots a good bit over average. Every time I do I jump for joy with the excitement of seeing such a nice hit. Then I go 3 or 4 days before I see another one that is significant to notice....There just isn't any consistency in anything. I figured when WG changed the code (about a year ago?) to have a more even distribution with less outliers, I would see more shots around average, but it didn't happen. I also consistently see kill shots on tanks that have 10-20% less HP than the average damage of the gun get low rolls. I attribute it to a saving throw to make the skill that allows your gun to load faster when you are below 10% health useful. Is that not feasible?

 

My stand on stats is completely consistent. I said to see my stats to show I was doing fine whether WG tried to handicap me or not. You said in another post"By your logic, I can say your stats are meaningless". I say they are meaningless since they will never get me a job or laid....Doesn't mean a quick glance won't tell you I do ok in game. There is a difference of context. I know I have rustled your feathers, but no need to grasp at straws for more insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driftin, how did you calculate the 673? Was it using the dossier app? Or manually? And did you specifically exclude kill shots?

It was all hand written in a notebook. I used the after battle report and replays to verify the numbers I wrote down in game. I picked the E100 to test on for 2 reasons. It was the tank I felt was getting consistently low rolls and the 17 second reload gave me time to write it down since I did it in pub matches. I excluded kill shots and obviously non pens can't be counted. If I remember correctly, that eliminated about 45-50% of my shots. Honestly, it all confuses me. It is possible that my high rolls coincided with non pens, misses, and kill shots, but that would make me one of the unluckiest people in the world... LOL

 

 

You mention a dossier tool. Is there a program that can actually gather the data for me? I would gladly run 200 more E100 games to redo the test as well as a few other tanks I feel low roll(E4 specifically). I seem to notice more with high alpha guns since the +-25% is a much larger margin with them. A 320 gun going form 270-340 doesn't jump out in game as much as a 750 gun hitting in the mid to low 600's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driftin, Echelon, etc, etc. Please ease off on the shit posts. Keep it classy.

I figured Echelon would try to pull strings and get me banned. Thanx for being fair Pity and calling out both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driftin: the dossier tool I have collects the data automatically, but it includes 0-dmg crits and kill shots so it is inaccurate. That is why I was wondering about methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Driftin, stats are what matters. If you have the numbers and methodology it can be evaluated to figure out whether the process was correct; it's easy to fuck up statistical analysis like this.

You need to exclude:

non-pen/0 damage crit/track shots

kill shots

potential kill shots

That last point is important; any shot at a target that has less health than max roll needs to be excluded. Otherwise you exclude high rolls (because they are kill shots) while including low rolls (which leave the target with a sliver of hp). That alone could be the difference between 750 and 673.

There might be other potential problems, but that's why you have to provide all the details. The community can pick at the results and figure out if there were problems. They can also repeat the test under the same parameters (aka scientific method).

There is a script for going through replays that could be edited to pull averages in a programmed and repeatable fashion, but I haven't played with it myself. I'm not aware of anything that will do it correctly and is available ready-to-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...