Streaks and fast matches in Armored Warfare

graphics-966049_1920

You may also like...

72 Responses

  1. Mko says:

    Today started pretty badly but overall it went very well (the number is my position in team by rep.) L 12, L 11, L 1, W 3, W 1, L 3, W 7, W 1, W 3, W 1, W 1, W 7, W 2. So that’s 13 battles, 9 wins, 8 times top 3 on the team, 4 gold medals. I had a nice winning streak at the end but the losing streak at the beginning troubles me…especially the first two battles where I simply did not perform at all. The point of this comment? Just repeating that streaks happen :)

  2. rttf says:

    “Fix MM, I’ve lost X many games in a row!!!!”

    This is a straw man. What you seem to have missed is that the current MM in AW is balancing teams by stats. Meaning that every time a player with good stats join a game he will only be put into teams with bad players. This “feature” has been confirmed numerous times. There are two obvious conclusions from this:

    1. Any lucky winning streak by a single player will cause his stats to rise “too high” and the MM will consider him to be better than what he is. The enemy team gets better players than his own team until his stats go down again. Most likely until his stats are “too low” since the MM probably won’t update his skill rating instantaneously. Conclusion: Both winning streaks and losing streaks will be longer than what’s expected from chance alone. Basic psychology explains why people only notice and complain about the losing streaks.

    2. Since both teams are balanced by skills there will always be close to a 50-50 chance of winning at the start of any match. This means that any team who gets in a first few lucky shots will vastly improve their chances of winning compared to the enemy team, since it just turned into a 14 vs 15 game where the players on the first team aren’t better than the players on the second. Thus we get a snowball effect ending in the usual 15-0 matches that are so common in this game compared to its competitors.

    • Spooky says:

      tldr; The skill rating is not based just on winrates, and even if the skill rating impacted your matchups a lot (a premise that isn’t true) that skill rating doesn’t fluctuate much with your win or loss streaks once you have played enough games, so your conclusions are not very accurate.

      More verbose answer: That was not a straw man but a succinct phrasing of a common complaint, I didn’t make it up out of thin air. The argument you are using uses a premise that isn’t true though. Not “every time a player with good stats joins a game he will only be put into teams with bad players…” Although AW’s MM is supposed to use an internal player rating as a third criteria (and only after the group of 30 vehicles is selected using two other major criteria, so skill is not used to select the 30 vehicles), there are numerous reasons why what you state is false, not the least of which is the first two criteria for selecting vehicles in the match must still be used when deciding the makeup of the two teams when splitting the non-skill based selection of 30 players. MM can’t allow a vehicle power level difference between the teams just because of the supposed internal rating/skill of players. So without skill being used to select the 30 players at all, and at times skill can’t even be used to balance the teams because of what tanks the “good” players are in may need to dictate what side they go to because of the selection criteria to begin with, your premise doesn’t stand for every single match as you say. Perhaps with a very large sample set across the whole server the overall winrate is constrained down from completely random MM, say a range of 35-65% for random MM to 40-60% for AW’s hybrid, but that is a far cry from everyone has a win rate hovering right at 50% and every match is a 50-50 chance of winning. I’m not even sure a true skill based MM system could guarantee most matches are 50-50, and AW’s is far from skill based MM.

      Another problem with what you describe for your number 1) is that player ratings (which isn’t based solely on win rate) won’t be going up and down very much once you have played a lot of games, so a streak isn’t going to impact your matchups since your “skill rating” didn’t change much as a result of the streak. Perhaps if you have only 10 games total in AW with an internal rating of 2,000 a losing streak brings your rating down to 1,400 your team composition changes. But, after a a thousand total games in AW if your internal rating is 2,000 when that same losing streak occurs, it isn’t going to drop your rating much, say it goes to 1,990. Even if the internal skill rating was a big role in your team composition the small rating change isn’t going to affect your team composition since 1,990 and 2,000 are too similar. Yes, I am just picking these numbers to illustrate a player’s initial rating may be subject to streaky wins and losses, but their well established rating won’t be.

      • cstamm says:

        Most people won’t get a 1000 games in a tank. I have 17,000 plus games total in WoT and have very few tanks with 200-300 games and many with under 100. Not knowing what AW secret sauce is for the skill portion we don’t know what enough games would be. :)

        • Spooky says:

          The secret sauce as you put it is an overall player rating, not an individual skill rating per tank as you seem to be implying. MM is currently suppose to select the tank/vehicle first (based on what I’d call a power level of the modules, etc. installed), then when it has a grouping of 30 vehicles it will use an internal to AW player rating (which is not based just on winrate) to distribute players to the two teams IF it can….the vehicle rating is still paramount in team placement even after the group of 30 is selected.

      • rttf says:

        “The skill rating is not based just on winrates”

        The fact that any skill rating will correlate with win-rates should be obvious.

        “that skill rating doesn’t fluctuate much with your win or loss streaks once you have played enough games”

        Since none of us knows how the skill rating in the MM is implemented we can only speculate. It is clear that basing the skill rating on your most recent performance is the most likely candidate for how they have implemented it, since the developers obviously understand that skills will change over time. Hence my point stands.

        • Spooky says:

          “The fact that any skill rating will correlate with win-rates should be obvious.”

          Not obvious and not necessarily true. Just look at WN8 in WoT. Plenty of people have WN8 (a skill rating) of one color on the chart but a win rate of a different color on the chart. Actually that may even be more common reflecting on the number of times signature files show different colors of WR and WN8. Sometimes even 4 different colors (skill rating, wr, recent skill rating, recent wr). Certainly there are times when the colors do match, all going to show there isn’t a direct correlation of a skill rating and a wr.

          “It is clear that basing the skill rating on your most recent performance is the most likely candidate for how they have implemented it, since the developers obviously understand that skills will change over time. Hence my point stands.”

          Obsidian using recent vs overall rating isn’t clear either, but let’s say they do and as you say, Obsidian knows skills change over time. They are smart enough to know that, so they are smart enough to know that a super small sample size of battles wouldn’t be big enough to accurately determine a player’s recent skill. Looking at WN8 and Wotlabs again, which I am sure they are familiar with, the recent performance rating is based on a large enough sample size to be accurate, or 1,000 battles. On that scale the small change in streaks players experience won’t move their recent skill rating enough during the streaks to matter how their placement on teams is determined.

          • rttf says:

            I think we can safely say that none of the people whining about loss streaks are even close to reaching 1000 games yet so my point still stands.

            • Spooky says:

              No, that is not safe to say. I’m seeing people with thousands of games under their belt according to the new forum signature stats banner released today. Besides, even a few hundred games would cause the swaying you are talking about to not happen. In addition, if I recall correctly, the MM may not even take a skill rating into account in separating the 30 players until there is a skill rating and Obsidian requires a certain amount of games to be played before they assign a skill rating.

          • DracoArgentum says:

            WN and WR not matching is mostly due to the limitations the WoT API forced on the WN development. It wasn’t possible to get per tank solo pub stats so the various iterations of WN kludged in various ways to approximate an answer.

            I’d expect an internally developed metric to be extremely accurate for 95% of the playerbase.

            • Spooky says:

              Are you saying WN8 doesn’t access all data or historically the previous wn# versions couldn’t? I’ve only played under wn8 and still have seen different colors.

              If an internal skill rating would mirror win rates so closely…what would be the reason to use anything besides win rates for the secret player rating? I don’t think any secret sauce rating not relying heavily on wr is going to match wr all the time. If it does, why even bother? If it is to prevent wr hacking then that would mean the rating and wr don’t track along with each other.

    • gellalli says:

      If numbervis true, u will be caught in loop with streaks of wins boosting your rating, resulting in you being placed on losing streak lowering your stats, resulting in you being placed on winstreak…

  3. gellalli says:

    I feel like main diference between good and bad player is, bad player blame team, while good player is asking himself, what he should do better to win. After mine 8lose streak on saturday, i was angry at me, cause i didnt carry enough. Sure, team didnt help me, but i can affect only my gameplay and every match i will play, only i will be constant, my team will be different.
    My golden rule: Never count on your team, if u want to win, you need to carry!

    About esl, i made post in suggestion forum. I dont want to post link since it may be against rules and i dont want to look like self promoting a**hole.

    • Ian says:

      I’d agree with that, especially about asking yourself, if you lost a match “Was there anything else i could have done, or done differently?”.

      But i dont get annoyed at losses, as much as i used to in any case, partly because individual contributions are better rewarded (even during a loss) than “the other game” and partly because it influences your ability to play well going forward. That and not being that ‘young’ anymore ;P

    • FrostRaiden says:

      yep, i don’t mind loses in aw, where in wot i casually raged -> 50% xp and credit bonus

      on the other hand i feel like carrying a match alone is way more difficult: yesterday i had a game in my MBt70, did 4k dmg and then, as the only survivor, i faced around 9 enemy tanks…. i didnt stand a chance. so what could i have done more? i don’t know. there is always a way to improve, but in aw the outcome of a match depends more on the team then on the single player, i guess…

      • Ian says:

        Ive seen this arguemnt around a bit; that individual contributions dont matter as much in AW as World of Tanks.

        I cant tell tbh.

        Ive done huge amounts of damage in both games and still come up on the losing side (did 8k on my Terminator in AW and still lost for example) so that in itself cant tell us/prove anything.

        However one theory for players being able to “carry more” in World of Tanks may be the way armour and penetration mechanics work (in WOT) coupled with map design.

        ‘Good’ players can exploit their armour to great effect (I.e the impact of angling heavily armoured vehicles) which can often hold off a large number of enemy vehicles at once. As long as the player doesnt get flanked.

        This may also be helped by the nature of WOT’s maps, many arent that open, and force players down a number of ‘corridors’. Additionally the small nature of maps often wont allow for flanking opportunities early on.

        All in all allowing them to survive and trade shots more effectively with a group of less experienced players, and hence possibly the chance for an individual to prevail against one or more enemy vehicles, thereby “carrying”.

        However armour angling is not as prevalent in AW (due to a number of reasons – just take my word for this at the moment) as it is in WOT, and the maps tend to be larger and more ‘open’ allowing for more flanking opportunities earlier on.

        Vehicle speed probably comes in to play as well, which may influences players ability to flank. In any case the issue is a combination of map

        • Ian says:

          design, penetration mechanics and probably vehicle speed.

          Possibly… its complicated.

          • Ian says:

            I should also rephrase the initial problem “As a solo player, is it more difficult to prevail against a group/number of opposing players in AW or WOT respectively?”

            • gellalli says:

              I think you have same carry potential, what u listed from wot is true, but in aw holding\pushing flanks can balance this. By carrying game you will have better wr, not 90%. I have aprox same wr (im counting last 1500 matches in both games)

        • cstamm says:

          I think that fact that at low-mid AW tiers you don’t see as many bounces as WoT and you see more consistent damage in AW that your hit pool tends to decrease faster in AW than it did in WoT which makes carrying harder since you can’t prevent damage as much as you can in WoT with some bouncy tanks.

    • Palop says:

      I don’t think the externalizing/internalizing thing (blaming team or MM vs. reviewing what could have been done better) is a bad player/good player thing. It’s a personality trait that you may be able to learn. The reason I think so is that I’m by no means a good player. I may be average at best. Still, after every battle (particularly when i die) i do a quick rerun in my head what i did right and what i did wrong. Even in good battles.
      Case point, yesterday i had a pretty good battle in my bmd1. Ended up second with 2.8k damage, but died. Immediately after the battle I could see two flaws in my effort. In the beginning i had a good spot and i was flinging missiles at the red team. However, if I’ve been alternating missiles and heat, my dpm would’ve higher. Also, when the flank broke down I hightailed out. Then at a river crossing i killed an OF. At that point I turned back to the enemy to engage. I got one more hit before a quick death. It is pretty obvious in hindsight that retreating further would have been the best option.

      The point is, even some bad players internalize the outcome. The reason we’re still bad is that we’re just not good at this game (yet i hope).

      • gellalli says:

        But asking qiestion what i did bad/what i could do better will eventually make u good player, because u are learning. While telling i was good my team was bad will never make u better. And im ranking players based on wr, not dmg.

  4. DracoArgentum says:

    Let me explain the people disagreeing with this post using a link to The Daily Mail. The gist, in case links don’t work, is that human intuition expects random to mean that an unbiased coin gives equal numbers of heads and tails in very short sequences. The reality is that you will get massive streaks, just like Spooky’s quick simulation showed. In fact if you don’t have streaks its a good bet that its not random, a human wrote it down thinking it was random.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1334712/Humans-concept-randomness-hard-understand.html

  5. TNCreator says:

    Now that gold ammo is gone, the last thing bad players can whine about is MM. And they do.
    Since I have the precise same WR in wot and aw, it loooks fine to me.

  6. Arnie says:

    “For the general playing population out there I think SilentStalker may be correct in assuming they’d grow tired of long, extended matches.”

    Are you serious? Players would get tired of competitive matches that go down to the wire? I seriously, wholeheartedly, EMPHATICALLY doubt that.

    • Spooky says:

      You missed the second option in his quote of “nothing happening” and that is what I was referring to with long, extended matches. Long and not much going on. Long as in an average match lasting more than 10-12 minutes. I probably wasn’t too clear.

      But sure, if players are thrilled each game then of course they’d want more (if it is each game). Although only a few would be thrilled, the rest dead and waiting for their tanks. 😉

      • Ian says:

        To an even greater extent that World of Tanks, i’d say this is also what World of Warships suffers from. Average game lengths seem to be far, far longer than even World of Tanks, we’re talking 10-20 minutes. With large amounts of time traversing distances to catch up with forces on the other side of the map at various stages of the game.

        Which also really slows down the rate of experience gain and thus progression. For example; you might be able to play three World of Tanks matches in the time it takes to conclude a World of Warships one.

  7. Bib Bob says:

    One question that people who think MM is somehow rigged against them personally always have trouble answering is why would a developer do that? What does it get them? How does it make them any more money in a F2P? (that last one is probably the most important question really)

    I’m not saying that every match is balanced in terms of vehicles or player skill but over time that will even out and the only constant will be you. Often people get worked up when the enemy team has more top tier tanks but I don’t see anyone complaining when they’re on the team with 3 tier 8’s versus 1.

    • Skouteh says:

      The one I hear all the time is “da longest sinz u uzd da prem shop, da moor da MM screws you ova, I haz proof!” followed by something that barely even classes as anecdotal evidence but seems to be good enough for them to reinforce their superstitions.

      It seems some folks have heard the phrase “If you can’t see how it’s paid for, you are the product” and applied it wrong, assuming the MM is making free players into fodder for pay players. If that were true, my WoT stats would be way better than they are. In reality, unconverted free players exist to keep the MM system constantly populated so everyone (including the pay players) can get into a match almost instantly at any time of day or night, seven days a week.

      Was about to write a thing about streaks, found this video to illustrate it, but… well, it just doesn’t need my writing any more, this explains the whole MM-Rage thing PERFECTLY. Gotta love Derren Brown…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1SJ-Tn3bcQ

  8. Mko says:

    I get winning streaks, I get losing streaks. Generally, though, they are not too long. I think I played twice yesterday, both times 10 battles, both times won 7. Then I wanted to do a little more but I got 3 defeats with Begleitpanzer in a row so I quit. Today I wasn’t doing so well, I wasn’t really keeping track but I think I got 2 wins (Mercenary LAV and AMX), then 2 defeats (Merc. MBT-70), then 2 wins (Merc. MBT-70), and then 1 defeat (Leo 2AV). Damn, my WR with Merc. MBT-70 went down to 72% noooo :( My head hurts a little and I just don’t feel like playing more so I quit.

    Anyway, first game with MBT-70 was below average, I was not playing poorly, I was doing what usually works. However, I got raped by an enemy tier 4 M109 in ways I could not comprehend. I could never even dream about doing anything like that in the Gvosdika…I really have to give the M109 a try.

    Second game with MBT-70 I had a good plan but it was meant for a different enemy…so I was out of the action for a while. I was barely getting started, taking 40 ramming damage and dealing like 2700 damage, when HALF of my team was GONE. I was like WTF, tried to make a stand (which almost never works in AW) and got a 5000+ damage defeat. The battle was overall not good, it simply went too fast, my team vaporized too fast.

    Third game with MBT-70, my team was too good. The battle was not very good again, it went too fast. I don’t remember the details, I just know I did 700 damage and ended up last in the team, and it was my first win of the day…I chose a place to go to and there were almost no enemies there.

    Finally, fourth game in MBT-70 was nice, did like 3500+ damage, survived, and the enemy actually put up a bit of a fight. Nice above-average game for me in MBT-70. Ended up 3rd in the team after two guys in VFMs.

    Last game was in Leo 2AV, which I haven’t enjoyed much so far. I simply don’t like the tank. To my surprise I managed to survive way longer than expected and the enemy inexplicably had massive problems penetrating my armor. That’s not what I’m used to with that tank. I got used to equal tier T-72s buttering through my front. Anyway, my team folded and I tried to make a stand, only to do 6300+ damage and not lose anyway.

    Once your team folds, it’s very unlikely you will be able to pull a win. This is the problem. Sometimes your team simply vaporizes too quickly, and then no matter how good you are, you have almost zero chance to turn the game around. When battles go too quickly, it’s generally not fun for either side. Furthermore, there are some serious balance problems in maps, like the shooting gallery on Pipelines where the north team has a big advantage in the middle and can very effectively shoot tanks trying to cross to line 9, while the other team cannot do this. There are balance problems with vehicles and vehicle classes as well. I think the Fox is massively OP, low tier TDs and AFVs are quite OP in general. Fox might be a more tricky thing…it’s probably that good players are performing above their level and bad players just completely suck in it. Generally, in tiers 1 to 6, if you have a good AFV player, your chances of winning go up massively. If you have a bad AFV player, you chances to win get very close to zero.

    I looked in-game and my average battle time is 7 minutes 17 seconds. I think battles are mostly longer than in WOT but I’m not sure. I have’t played WOT in a couple days / weeks now. I feel like it’s more extreme in AW. I mean that if a game is short in AW, it’s really damn short. On the other hand, if a game is long in AW, it will be more than 10 minutes most of the time. So the average time might be very similar but I think the distribution is different. Obviously, this is just the feeling I get, I have no data to back this up.

    • Mko says:

      ugh, sorry for the novel. I lost the game with the Leo 2AV, I made a mistake in the 6th paragraph.

    • Spooky says:

      I think there are balance issues in the game which is why they are changing class attributes (the new TD suppressing fire), reworking MM so they can control over the number of classes in a battle (and I hope other changes too), adjusting tank characteristics, etc. etc. but I am not sure I agree with this: “Once your team folds, it’s very unlikely you will be able to pull a win. This is the problem.”

      That is maybe different than in other games and if it happens 90 seconds in it could be an issue, but perhaps the larger picture strategy of AW is more about how to cause this rolling to happen in your favor vs winning your local battle against the other tank and/or being able to fight 3 tanks at once in a “carry” game. Maybe not, and I think the AW staff see the rolling as a problem too. I don’t see it all THAT much more than I did in WoT.

      Where did you see your average battle time or did you do the math on total battle time and number of games? I just did mine and I am at 6.77 minutes. I wouldn’t think battle time equates to game time though since I read it as how long you lived.

      • Mko says:

        It’s difficult to say. It’s different in WOT. In WOT, when I carry, I mostly carry a bad team and I win against the odds. Something like a carry is less common in AW, I think. Definitely this kind of carry when you win against the odds. When I get a really good game in AW, my team is relatively decent and I am the guy who does a good share of the work, sometimes even most of it. I still think that once your team folds in AW, your chances to win are extremely low. It might not be “the problem”, though. Perhaps you are right that AW is more about causing this rolling to happen, I think I am noticing that. A successful game is usually like that.

        I did the math, I don’t think the game shows average battle time. Simply divided total battle time by number of battles. I’m not sure what total battle time is, exactly. The game does show average mission time for PvE, though…that’s a little useless 😀

      • Skouteh says:

        I thing the primary balance issue that needs to evolve is the maps. They are all new, we’re all learning how to deal with them, the complete roster of vehicles isn’t available yet… they need a lot of work that can’t be done yet. In contrast, WoT’s maps have been tweaked, changed, rebalanced and in some cases completely rebuilt or discarded entirely. They’ve been doing this for years. AW’s maps aren’t bad right now, but we’re seeing the issues and you can bet money the process of evolving those maps to shape PvP gameplay to be more enjoyable and satisfying is already underway.

    • intlidave says:

      I’d like to second that. Especially, how the AFVs seem to have a strong case of “WoT Hellcat” syndrome. Tomatoes will park right in front of an MBT, shoot its front turret, get killed doing 0 damage, and then whine on the forums about it. Good players can use the hugely superior vision and camo to spot, avoid, outflank and kill pretty much anything other than another AFV with impunity.

  9. zer0her0 says:

    To add to the whole coin toss and gambler analogy, there is even a phrase from Poker that is perfect here. Going/Being on tilt. From Wikipedia: “Tilt is a poker term for a state of mental or emotional confusion or frustration in which a player adopts a less than optimal strategy, usually resulting in the player becoming over-aggressive.” I.e. once a player starts losing they’ll not think actions through fully which will lead to more losing. I think it’s a good sign that player is On Tilt if they’re going to the boards to rant, and there past few rounds may not have been played with the best level of their skill.

    I think the analogy works perfect here as you have a deck of cards (i.e. the players in match making) and if optimal MM would “deal” every player a completely even set to both sides (i.e. all Aces if they were top players, or in my case a set of fellow 3’s and 4’s). The problem with this analogy? Players are humans, we have bad days, we have distractions, we may’ve been out at the pub w/ our mates and our reaction is a tad slower from drinks, or finally we may also be on tilt.

    So in summary, can MM be improved? I’m sure it can, but also it needs a much bigger player base w/ a longer history of play I think, in addition to tweaks to the actually MM algorithm. The thing they CAN change that is more consistent is stats on tanks and to a lesser extent map layout/flow.

  10. Alex says:

    WOT patented dynamic battle session matchmaking and you are talking about some abstract coin flips. MM and game mechanic is rigged in favor of the amateur players.

    Talking about AW… MM is just broken. I have too many games “1 afv” vs “5 afv”. It’s not pleasant gaming experience and it can be easily fixed.

    • Spooky says:

      ?? Not sure what you mean, but even in AW’s upcoming MM fixes (where they can control the number of each class of vehicle in the game so it isn’t “Armored MBT” matches), there will still be streaks that cause some players to see patterns that are not there.

      • Alex says:

        >cause some players to see patterns
        Maybe they are right?
        Map is unbalanced? Remove it. MM is broken? Fix it. OP tank? Nerf it.
        From open beta start my WR is going down. But effectiveness is going up. I don’t know what to think.

        • Spooky says:

          But how does something (map, tank, etc.) being broken cause your WR to go down, shouldn’t you over the course of enough battles be on the ‘good’ side of the map about the same as you are on the ‘bad’ side of a map? For all those games that you had 5 AFV’s for or against you, didn’t you also have games where the reverse was true? Could your WR going down just be a reflection of some other players getting better, dragging people closer to the 50% mark?

          If you perceive you are just on the wrong side of things..is it just that, a perception? As another commenter posted here, humans have a negative bias hard wired into us. Maybe track the number of times you are on the bad side of a map over the next 500 games vs the good side of the map. If you were on the bad side 52 times and the good side only 16 times well ok then, play some more games. 😉 Seriously though, statistically some players should be getting a raw deal as somebody has to be the outlier, but not everyone can be the outlier. Hence many players are seeing patterns that are not there.

          • Alex says:

            “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
            The more i have tanks with 45-50 WR , the less i want to play.
            I bought amx pac90 and 30+ games later i had 50% WR with 2.7k avg dmg.
            8 (yeah eight) players dies with ZERO damage and obsidian shutting down threads about MM?
            Maybe its look like ‘negative bias’ but cmon its a game. If i cant win, if i cant farm whats the point to play more or better?

            • Mko says:

              Please don’t take this the wrong way but if you have bad WR, shouldn’t the matchmaker be rigged in your favor, then?

              MM is not responsible for players failing. Everyone is still mostly just figuring the game out, so people fail more often than they normally would. I consistently see people failing in T-72 tanks, though.

              • Alex says:

                >shouldn’t the matchmaker be rigged in your favor, then
                I am better than average, but not pro level. If i get a chance to play good – i play good. But sometimes its just suffering – bad map, bad map, bad team…

    • Skouteh says:

      If you don’t understand why everyone uses coin flips, it’s pretty obvious you don’t understand maths or probability on any level at all. Look at it from this perspective, rather than from a single player POV – 98% of the time, half the players in the game will win and half the players in the game will lose. The other 2%, everyone loses. So yeah, it’s perfectly valid from a mathematical standpoint to boil every game down to a coin flip because when you look at the macro instead of the micro, it is.

      AW matchmaking needs tweaking, but hey, WoT’s MM was fairly awful not so long ago, and frequently has brain farts itself, even recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF8NbQ1VSR4

      However, to assert these systems are “broken” is just silly and childish, as is accusing the system of being rigged, you need a maturity upgrade before you start throwing terms like that around kiddo.

  11. bekari says:

    i would agree about coin toss, if not one thing

    there is MM which is broken to hell, let’s say i had 4 matches today where one team had -2 T9 MBTs while enemy team had 1 or even zero T9
    i was lucky to be on with T9s and won game, but that does not change anything
    also had 2-3 matches today when i was only T7 in Chall1 , and both teams full with T6-T5 , very very fair

    • Spooky says:

      That would be similar though to my comment that in any given match a player may have an influence. MM being wonky because of low server or tier populations is similar. That could obviously affect the outcome of a single match. However, just taking your example of 2 T9’s being on your side…play enough games and it will be the reverse too, they will be on the opposite side of you enough to compensate.

      In the end, the streaks players feel have more to do with the law of large numbers than the idiosyncrasies of the current MM (which is being replaced).

  12. Palop says:

    To add to the above post. Skill is really only like having a weighted coin in the coin toss experiment. The coin then has a bias towards one side, but streaks still happen. Your skill will over time add up to an either winning or losing record. At the time of the battle things might look like you’re at the mercy of the MM, but your contribution will make the difference once in a while, hence the weighted coin.

    Second, losing streaks are noticed better for two reasons: 1) we hate losing and will take notice of a losing streak. B) when we’re on a losing streak we get frustrated and now we play on a worse level than usual, and then run into the possibility of extending the streak further.

  13. Krokodil says:

    I’ve always felt like this whole thing with losing streaks could simply be attributed to the general human cognitive bias in which we favor negative events or information. As in, we generally have equal numbers of winning or losing streaks, but due to natural biases it appears as though we have more losing streaks simply because they stand out more in our mind and thus are what we remember the best.

    Human perception is a wonky thing. I seriously doubt 95-99% of the people blaming matchmaker for being rigged have any valid statistical or objective evidence at all to back up their claims.

  14. Robbie says:

    A few serious question first. Are you in any way employed or rewarded by Armoured Warfare over and above the press junkets and freebies? Are you worried that if you were to take a contrary stance to silentstalker on absolutely anything you would in some way lose a privilege? Do you feel that your journalistic integrity is in any way compromised as a result of your association with Armoured Warfare?

    I ask as I want to know exactly where you are coming from because either by coincidence or design you always but always tow the company line which is entirely up to you but I believe in the interest of transparency you should declare your interests.

    As an example silentstalker is known to quash discussion on skill or league based match making closing or removing threads and refusing to acknowledge that you must balance players by ability or you do not have balance and here you are peddling the same nonsense.

    Simply put if one team comprises better players than the other then you are going to see more landslides. Balance the tanks and maps but until you balance the players you don’t have a balanced battle . Now I am afraid that is an irrefutable fact supported by simple logic and any amount of mathematical theory.

    Hence my question how did both you and silentstalker manage to independently arrive at such a flawed conclusion?

    • Woras says:

      I guess its more of a tank and map balance – when landslide arrives – the opposing forces have nowhere to cover or retreat.

      • Robbie says:

        I acknowledge that tanks and maps are not perfect and that they need to be balanced but to then try and deny that the players abilities need also to be balanced is illogical and disingenuous at best.

        • Krokodil says:

          But how illogical is it, really? Armored Warfare, and by extension WoT and the other WG titles, are not (and almost certainly never will be) competitive games to the same degree as say, League of Legends. AW is a game based on progression, grinding rather than competition. Everything in AW is based on repeatedly playing one tank until you finish repeatedly playing that one tank and you unlock the ability to buy and repeatedly play the tank after that and the cycle continues. And the model works. Wargaming proved as much with WoT. Thus, there is not (and should not) be as heavy an emphasis on single matches and rather the overall state of the grind. On the other hand, a game like LoL is heavily competitive, and used skill-based matchmaking in normal games as well as ranked. In normal games it’s matchmaker rating or MMR, in ranked it’s a league/ladder based system. But progression in LoL is measured differently than in AW/WoT. Instead of progressing through tech trees or dealer trees, you progress by increasing your ranking, in tiers and divisions. Although champions have to be unlocked, grinding for currency or experience is not the primary focus as it is in AW. You can theoretically go from bronze to challenger playing only a single champion. Try playing matches at every tier using only the M113 or the PT-76. Thus, the idea is to make matches competitive and for players to play against those similar in skill level, almost like a real sport.

          The problem is, this isn’t why AW or WoT were created. Having a skill-based matchmaker, even one that simply places two equally skilled players against each other, would serve to normalize everyone’s winrate closer to the 50% or 49.5% or whatever magical number that serves as the average. Lower winrate means lower exp income, so in a sense, this would result in above average players having their progression punished by reducing their winrate, and the opposite effect would occur for below average players. In a theoretical game where grind is key and being good slows down the grind, what incentive would there be to getting better? Of course, some sort of bonus for players with high rating could be implemented, but then people would crack the system to pad the rating and other people would complain about discriminating against low skill players and the whole cycle starts all over again. Having a completely random system is the easiest and least needlessly complicated system for a game like this.

          • Spooky says:

            Sort of funny, while I was googling around before writing this article one of the threads I read was asking why there were streaks in LoL…so if that is an example of skill based MM, well, there are still players arguing over why there are streaks. When in actuality there will always be streaks in large numbers. 😉

            I hope you are wrong, but you probably are not, about the tank MMO genre not being competitive. They have said things like eSports and stuff area down the road (my interpretation put this as at least a year away). If what you are saying about AW and WoT won’t ever be competitive because they are focussed on progression is true, then they will never be big in eSports. That is OK I guess, but eSports is looking to be huge in the next 5 years so games that don’t have a role in that universe may suffer a bit.

            • Krokodil says:

              I use LoL as an example because I play it from time to time and it seems to be what some people hold up as an example of a place where skill-based MM works. But yes even in LoL there are still streaks, there are still landslides, because humans are by nature inherently inconsistent.

              As for eSports, I wish it wasn’t the case, but this is what we’re stuck with. I remember when WoT eSports first started and only tier 8s were available, so there were around 20 tanks total that were usable and 4 or 5 that were actually competitive (it was autoloader meta back then, so T69s, AMX-13/90s and AMX-50/100s out the ass with a few IS-3s depending on map, if my memory serves) resulting in nearly identical team comps for every single match. It wasn’t very interesting to watch. Not sure if much has changed since I haven’t watched any recently and nobody I know has either.

          • Skouteh says:

            If you think you understand matchmaking and skill measurements and think team formulation systems should be much more complicated than they are now: Watch this documentary.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4auzn4bK1bM

            It’s about two guys who won the Nobel Prize after coming up with a formula that could effectively be used to beat the stock market. What happens? Watch. Find out.

            • Skouteh says:

              (That was actually supposed to post somewhere else. Weird, but never mind – works in this context to reinforce wot he said just as well) 😉

      • Spooky says:

        Landslides or not, there would still be streaks where players see patterns and make false attributions as to why those patterns exist. The streak article above would also apply to WoT which has similar complaints about MM and steaks, yet I don’t remember the same landslide rants being all that prevailing there. Maybe I just don’t remember landslides being an issue in WoT.

        • Woras says:

          Its very simple why there isnt in WoT:
          Tanks drive at 80+ kmph 😀

          Maybe…..baby, solution is bigger maps that are ACTUALLY bigger (Reactor, you failmap, go away). That way people will have more time to react to flank gone. Also need to adjust cap timers.

    • Spooky says:

      LOL, no, I am not an employee nor do they pay me, and no I don’t worry about disagreeing with them and no they don’t compromise me any more than you are compromising me now by communicating with me. But gee, thanks for asking and questioning my integrity, though! 😮

      As far as never disagreeing with SilentStalker, http://armoredtalk.com/2015/11/19/insanity-correu-pts-validity/ is an example I remember (because I got hate mail over it, lol) if you want one. He and I differ on a number of topics that I am aware of and likely even more. I select his quotes most often because he is the staff member that posts the most. When one of any of their quotes is newsy or strikes a thought in me, I write about it. BTW, if he removes threads about skill based MM that does seem excessive to me. I’d disagree with doing that if the skill based topic was the reason for the thread’s removal. I suppose their forums are their house and they can do with them what they want regardless what you or I think though.

      Other than giving me a chuckle, your comment confuses me. Nothing in this post was about skill based MM so I am not sure where you are coming from with that either. The tldr; of the post would be: people see patterns in streaks that are not there.

      Actually, if there was skill based mm across the entire player base wouldn’t that push the standard deviation for wins/losses even smaller? Maybe not. But if so, a smaller deviation would be closer to a 50% coin toss distribution. Although fun fact: currency coin tosses really are not 50/50 because the coin sides are not balanced, but that is a topic for another day I guess.

      BTW, if you are curious, I’m already on record as saying that once the player population is big enough to support it, some sort of ranked play or skill based MM may be fun to have. I assume it would use an elo type system that the chess world uses. But I wouldn’t enforce that on the entire populace nor would I do it now and fracture the players in the queue even more. And no, I have no idea what SS’s or any other AW employee’s opinion is on that. Hopefully, it is different though or you will call me a lackey again. 😉

  15. DS25 says:

    With 100 km/h moving vehicles and shots that take up to 40% of a tank’s HP i don’t think that 5 minutes matches are an issue.

  1. December 7, 2015

    […] post Streaks and fast matches in Armored Warfare appeared first on Armored Talk, an Armored Warfare […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *