Edit History

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position. I'm also permanently stuck up on the Glass Ceiling of 52.5% ...

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is being forced to eat an quivalent amount of losses, by deliberately being put in unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.53% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

0.01 x 0.0047 = 0.000047, so the odds of those 2 ridiculously unlikely events, happening one after the other, are 1: 21,276

So, fuck it AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position. I'm also permanently stuck up on the Glass Ceiling of 52.5% ...

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is being forced to eat an quivalent amount of losses, by deliberately being put in unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.53% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

0.01 x 0.0047 = 0.000047, so the odds of those 2 ridiculously unlikely events, happening one after the other, are 1: 21,276

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position. I'm also permanently stuck up on the Glass Ceiling of 52.5% ...

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is being forced to eat an quivalent amount of losses, by deliberately being put in unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.53% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

0.01 x 0.0047 = 0.000047, so the odds of those 2 happening one after the other, are 1: 21,276

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position. I'm also permanently stuck up on the Glass Ceiling of 52.5% ...

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.53% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

0.01 x 0.0047 = 0.000047, so the odds of those 2 happening one after the other, are 1: 21,276

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.53% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

0.01 x 0.0047 = 0.000047, so the odds of those 2 happening one after the other, are 1: 21,276

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.53% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

0.01 x 0.0047 = so the ods of those 2 happening i after the other are 1: 21,276

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.5% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

and if you want to multiply these 2 together, ie the chances of these 2 very improbable events, happening one after another, it's 0.0017x0.0046 = 0.00000782

or odds of 1: 127,877.

So, fuck off AW.

& UNINSTALLED

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

and if you want to multiply these 2 together, ie the chances of these 2 very improbable events, happening one after another, it's 0.0017x0.0046 = 0.00000782

or odds of 1: 127,877.
So, fuck off AW.

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever, just for fun with no statistical rigour whatsoever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

and if you want to multiply these 2 together, ie the chances of these 2 very improbable events, happening one after another, it's 0.0017x0.0046 = 0.00000782

or odds of 1: 127,877

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry-picking the ranges a bit, but whatever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

and if you want to multiply these 2 together, ie the chances of these 2 very improbable events, happening one after another, it's 0.0017x0.0046 = 0.00000782

or odds of 1: 127,877

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know I'm cherry picking the ranges a bit, but  whatever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

and if you want to multiply these 2 together, ie the chances of these 2 very improbable events, happening one after another, it's 0.0017x0.0046 = 0.00000782

or odds of 1: 127,877

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing, and i know i.m cherry picking the ranges a bit, but  whatever:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

and if you want to multiply these 2 together, ie the chances of these 2 very improbable events, happening one after another, it's 0.0017x0.0046 = 0.00000782

or odds of 1: 127,877

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:

on the way up, the chances of getting more than 18 losses, in 54 matches is 99.54%
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting more than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 team... IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed. The best glops player i've seen had about 60% over 12,000 games.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself. That you listed.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins, in 39 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins, in 30 matches is 99.83% ... (if i've counted it right this time)

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins, in 37 matches is 99.6% ...

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.

EDIT:

and one last thing:
on the way down, the chances of getting better than 11 wins in 37 matches is 99.6%

before i forget:
Platoon Advantage before and after 55 .... (i.e. one team has a platoon, the other does not)
Platoon advantage games 0-55: us 11, them 9, = 50/50 pretty much
Platoon advantage games 56-95, us 3, them 13 = bend over, and start praying

Also, I have screenshots of all the games, just in case.

On 8/15/2020 at 12:20 AM, LeoAegisMaximus said:

were these games played sequentially? or over a similar time period? 

I played games, basically randomly. A few each day, some Saturday, some Sunday, most 2, or 3 or 4 at a time, on weekday early evenings. I made no effort to play at exact times/days, just in case I ended up running into the same people all the time.

NOTE:
I wasn't even trying to discover this, at all.
My original plan was to see if there was a difference between: me playing Rosomak on a clean account vs. me playing Rosomak on my usual account.
And I wrote the chart out, and looked at it and said "what the fuck??!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weirdest thing was the wins, every 3 games or so, from 55 games on down.
The losses were 700 points, 400 points, etc, but the wins when I got them, or rather when I was given one were apocalyptic slaughters, 1700+ point sometimes over 2000!

It's as though something had been arranged, to soften the blow of constant losses, an occasional win had to be ensured. Just so the experience wasn't totally without hope, just to make it look like you "had a chance".

What I think happened is Mr Anonymous had no stats, by definition, at the start, having never played glops before. Also it would be unfair to punish some guy wou had played 2 games, randomly won them, and now has a 100% win rate. . If you have 1000 games, you'd have a win% that's an effective measure of your skill, and can be used for balancing. So, therefore at some point between 0 and 1000, the system would say you now have "stats".
I played 10 games of glops on this acc before, so that makes the actual total about 65, for your stats to count?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

There are people with very high winrates in GLOPS (70-85%)

As for players with great win rates, I absolutely know they exist. And I'm not denying that maybe it's pure skill. I also think that a great deal of it, is all the other advantages you can get for yourself.

There's: Skill. Being in a platoon and fighting in a coordinated manner. Having voice communication. Getting OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks (that we now know, ALL have premium matchmaking). More on this last option later.

I believe that even if you don't really have the skill, or just a reasonably decent amount of skill, if you add up all these other advantages, you can break through the %limit.

Of course when you have really skilled players... what do you almost ALWAYS see them driving?
In a platoon, fighting in a coordinated manner, most with OPhelia. Always driving notedly OP, and/or Premium tanks, and I bet you 1000g, they have voice comms as well.

As for balancing them, when you have a 3man [A1arM] platoon, all with the other advantages listed, they are 30% of a 10 vs. 10 tea. . IMHO there isn't ANYTHING that the balancing can do, to cope with that.

On 8/14/2020 at 9:04 PM, TeyKey1 said:

I fail to see what benefit such a system would have in general

Why would they do it?
In the beginning there was SIMM. There were reasons for having it, and they would apply here.
Also, my guess is as follows:

On having a lower limit, i.e. making sure people don't lose too many matches, that helps with player retention. In other words: players that lose all the time, quit. If players can't lose more than certain %, it keeps them interested, it gives them hope.

On having an upper limit, that's easy.
It's game monetisation 101. You introduce some sort of unnecessary grind, or handicap, or limit, or annoyance, and at the same time, you offer players the chance to avoid it, by paying.

All those premiums (that you buy) are pretty OP, IMHO. Ophelia, who you buy, is totally pay to win, I think we can agree. And, oh the irony! isn't the CATTB going on sale soon....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the logical fallout from this; puts me and my other, real account; in a very difficult position.

My only way out of this now, is to buy my way to a better winrate. Which proves nothing. Me winning more in an op tank, is still just me. My wins are just paid for.
If I play a brilliant match (for me), and win as a lone player, all it's going to get me, is an equivalent amount of losses, through then being given effectively unwinnable matches.

That's a pretty bleak outlook. ... I did not want to know this, and I would much rather NOT think that's how things are.