Since WeeGee says there is no aiming bug...

[Pugilistic]

7 hours ago, Type_93 said:

Oh please. He wasn’t trolling and you were notorious for your half brained conspiracy theories from the old forums. Bottom line from your OP, you got out played and you don’t want to acknowledge that fact. RNG worked against you is all. WES and a few other posters here are always trying to act like WG is the enemy and the “they won’t get another done from me” line only holds up the Xmas events. The game will always have bugs and glitches but it’s not some grand conspiracy by WG against its own players. Accept that or quit playing. 

Exactly. Occasionally, the flier from an apparently badly aimed salvo citadels and kills you. Its just GG and back to port. 

[Justin_Simpleton]

I guess I see things a little differently.  I treat this game and everything else I see on my computer as 'virtual' and doesn't exist anywhere but in my head. Everyone uses fake names and isolates themselves from this virtual world so there is no way to relate any of this to my real world.  I do recognize that there are real people behind those fake names, and all mean the best for this game. 

So, given this game is just my fantasy, I imagine War Gaming is working on the next thing in gaming and that is to help their customers deal with their issues such as gambling, anger, disappointment, and stupidity.  It's working for me.

I also imagine that there are several different random generators in use.  And I know how to 'adjust' those generators.

I went thru the super tester program and understand things do get tested, and bugs are tracked.  There are some bugs in the testing program, however.

 I have used the ticket process for reporting problems and they have been prompt to help. I don't like hunting for the place to put my comment in the proper category, though.  I think those issues that can't get resolved quickly are tracked.

I don't find the published statistics and information sufficient to prove anything I claim.  50% of my kills are DDs.

If you drill into the details of this game you will find problems and inconsistences.  

[AlphaSierra]

On 9/24/2023 at 10:01 AM, Asym said:

I doubt that is real.... 

I don't doubt it one bit.  As a programmer that would be pretty high on my priorities list.  Every application with multiple users has groups and those groups have options, plain and simple.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

That's true. But flogging seems what Wedgie understands and reacts to.

As for evidence.......without looking at the actual code.......is impossible.

 

Completely unrelated  (and I stress that, I wanted to ask you for quite some time about it) what is the explanation behind the odd torp spreading? ( when the torps are launched like overlapped) Is  that a bug?

There is dispersion when torpedoes are launched from a ship or aircraft.  For ships, it's something small, like +/- 1º or 1.5º something like that?  Anyway, if RNGeebus decides to be funny and puts two torpedoes next to one another at extremes, you can see some pretty weird gaps / groupings.

[Andrewbassg]

45 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

There is dispersion when torpedoes are launched from a ship or aircraft.  For ships, it's something small, like +/- 1º or 1.5º something like that?  Anyway, if RNGeebus decides to be funny and puts two torpedoes next to one another at extremes, you can see some pretty weird gaps / groupings.

I see. Thank you.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The proof is in the pudding, I'm afraid.  And while it does sound cruel, conspiracy theories about being "held back" by whatever RNG-based element (matchmaking, dispersion, map selection, loot box drops, etc) don't amount to a lick until evidence is provided -- and so it comes off as just petulance.

And let's be clear:  It is possible to find and demonstrate evidence where tampering exists.  Most famously in recent memory should be the Christmas Loot Boxes with the weighted drops being categorically proven by the player base until WG owned up to it.  This was a great win for the community and it should be taken as a lesson.  FIND EVIDENCE.  Anecdotes aren't evidence.  Feels aren't evidence.  Our brains are TERRIBLE at seeing patterns in genuine random chaos and it gets worse when we're emotionally invested in the outcome.  Get numbers that others can also generate.

There is genuine danger in constant voicing about being victimized by imaginary malicious systems.  You can talk yourself into seeing problems where they don't exist.  Worse, you can convince others of the same.  And those eyes might be better served looking for where the genuine problems actually are.

By a similar token, blanket dismissals of theories without data doesn't amount to a lick either. All you have basically said is you doubt it's real until someone does the work to demonstrate. That does NOT mean that the hypothesis is false.

Fully agree with you that finding evidence is the key. My point is that we should not be discouraging people from looking into their conspiracies...we should be encouraging them to collect the data to demonstrate it.

If we constantly drive down people who are raising potential issues, the pool of people willing to collect data shrinks.

[Frostbow]

7 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The existence of a patent isn't evidence of it's use.  If there is evidence of it's use, I'm all ears, but in the 10+ years I've been playing Wargaming's products, no one has brought forward anything but the simple anecdote of:  "I think I'm better at video games than my stats are indicating.  This MUST mean that the system is rigged against me!"

That is true. I've seen players blame (whether rightfully or wrongly) something or someone else for the result of a particular battle. That is just part of human nature, and is indicative of a player's locus of control.

While anyone can discuss the finer points of the game, including that much demonized matchmaking patent that lesser players equate to lopsided matches, I believe all we have as players are anecdotal, and not definitive, evidence. 

However, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Frostbow

[LittleWhiteMouse]

27 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

By a similar token, blanket dismissals of theories without data doesn't amount to a lick either. All you have basically said is you doubt it's real until someone does the work to demonstrate. That does NOT mean that the hypothesis is false.

Fully agree with you that finding evidence is the key. My point is that we should not be discouraging people from looking into their conspiracies...we should be encouraging them to collect the data to demonstrate it.

If we constantly drive down people who are raising potential issues, the pool of people willing to collect data shrinks.

Absolutely.  The catch here is that we've been hearing the same rhetoric for ten years now with several independent attempts made to discover something to no avail.  While a lack of proof does is not prove that everything is fine, with the amount of energy put into looking for something screwy, you think we would have found something by now...

[Asym]

3 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The proof is in the pudding, I'm afraid.  And while it does sound cruel, conspiracy theories about being "held back" by whatever RNG-based element (matchmaking, dispersion, map selection, loot box drops, etc) don't amount to a lick until evidence is provided -- and so it comes off as just petulance.

And let's be clear:  It is possible to find and demonstrate evidence where tampering exists.  Most famously in recent memory should be the Christmas Loot Boxes with the weighted drops being categorically proven by the player base until WG owned up to it.  This was a great win for the community and it should be taken as a lesson.  FIND EVIDENCE.  Anecdotes aren't evidence.  Feels aren't evidence.  Our brains are TERRIBLE at seeing patterns in genuine random chaos and it gets worse when we're emotionally invested in the outcome.  Get numbers that others can also generate.

There is genuine danger in constant voicing about being victimized by imaginary malicious systems.  You can talk yourself into seeing problems where they don't exist.  Worse, you can convince others of the same.  And those eyes might be better served looking for where the genuine problems actually are.

I don't disagree that constant conspiracy theories can skew a perspective....  But, we must consider that some of have taken 300, 400+ matches to actually plot out observations that made no sense.  I am doing exactly that on spawn points:  I spawn at the same place, no matter the ship,  all of the time (how does that lessen my earning potential?  Is it Intentional?)  We'll see what the sample data says.....

And, being someone whom professionally plays/ed with Chaos and Asymmetrical System theory, "order" is mathematically established no matter what the completely oblivious, massively random determinants seem to say..... 

How RNG is RNG?  How does an "art" change modify hit box geometry to the point the lessening of damage capabilities that are so small they aren't noticed and across thousands of ships,  creates how many more games played??    Some of our example of taking an AA ship into an event stage and seemingly missing the constant BOT carriers we'd seen for weeks and weeks....?  Coincidence? 

You have pointed out that the chain-of-custody in the Integrity of an event simply wasn't there....  And, you only have integrity once.....  everything after that has "doubt" that no data can overcome since we can't see the programming....

AND, many thanks to all of your efforts !

[Yedwy]

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

As for evidence.......without looking at the actual code.......is impossible.

And this is all that needs to be said, yes getting evidence of some levels of tampering by measuring and observing is possible (usually the more crude ones), on others its impossible to distinguish the underlysing mathematics by pure observation because one or even several persons "point of view" is insufficient to provide relevant data or the number of  needed observed permutations/scenarios is too great to do in an experiment...

Its not even computer only its science in its very core, like how many times there were experiments that yielded the results in the lines of thing x is a direct cause of thing y and then years or decades later people dumped the data in the computer it said "no connection whatsover in statistical sense"

I am not claiming WG is rigging the game against me, I am saying we all know squat about what algorithms they are using for the MM or any other part of the game as they are proprietary and hence hidden from eyes so dismissing and mocking people for their oppinions in those circumstances is out of place

just my 2c

[majmac]

We play within the limitations of a human-created game.

For example RNG is not random. Sure, they have a  number generator, but that cannot produce random numbers, only number withing their parameters.

No human-created programme can create absolutely random numbers, so we just need to accept the limitations (and the advantages).

People/players, have their observations and even if they seem far-fetched, let them have their "day in the sun" as it helps them try to make sense of why they cannot win every game they are in (as they seem to think they should).

As an old saying from the 1970's goes, "Just because I am paranoid does not mean the Russians are not coming."

[Admiral_Karasu]

Theoretically speaking, if you planned to find evidence without access to the code, the only feasible way of doing that I can see is trying to detect patterns. That takes a hell of a lot of work, though, and basically I don't think such patterns can even be detected by a single player, they would more likely be spread over the playerbase. The first step would be trying to decide what factors could influence such patterns, and if having the same factors present produces the same outcomes.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

11 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Theoretically speaking, if you planned to find evidence without access to the code, the only feasible way of doing that I can see is trying to detect patterns. That takes a hell of a lot of work, though, and basically I don't think such patterns can even be detected by a single player, they would more likely be spread over the playerbase. The first step would be trying to decide what factors could influence such patterns, and if having the same factors present produces the same outcomes.

This is what was attempted in the past.  Brute forcing through the collection of literally thousands of games.  Keeping track of wins, losses, draws, team comp, maps played, ship played, matchmaking, results, etc.

[Admiral_Karasu]

15 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

This is what was attempted in the past.  Brute forcing through the collection of literally thousands of games.  Keeping track of wins, losses, draws, team comp, maps played, ship played, matchmaking, results, etc.

Has a better way been discovered? Or is this an exercise in futility and the community should rather focus on more easily decipherable and more fruitful pursuits?

[Guest]

I think the evidence exists when you play low tier. The BOTs on one team are good BOTs, smart BOTs, that WASD and hit what they shoot at while the other team has typical moronic BOTs. That's not "random" or coincidence.  7 to 0 and 8 to 1 kill ratios then ensue among said BOTs.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Kalishnikat

[Admiral_Karasu]

14 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

I think the evidence exists when you play low tier. The BOTs on one team are good BOTs, smart BOTs, that WASD and hit what they shoot at while the other team has typical moronic BOTs. That's not "random" or coincidence.  7 to 0 and 8 to 1 kill ratios then ensue among said BOTs.

Well if this is the case, then the easiest way to 'rig' this is to have a hidden 'switch', potentially even hidden RNG values that single out one team as the intended winner and the other team as the intended loser for any battle. Then there wouldn't be any pattern if this was done on a battle by battle basis. The same RNG switch could also modify anything else in the battle that is RNG based.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Has a better way been discovered? Or is this an exercise in futility and the community should rather focus on more easily decipherable and more fruitful pursuits?

A better way?  No.  We'll never have real data to play with.  It's all about "trust..."

I would suggest that Occam is a better tool for any investigation into game practices.... 

Do you want to play a game that all of the patterns observed "confirms" all that makes you uncomfortable???    Could be why we are losing players and have a stalled population.   Some care and some reject....

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 Or is this an exercise in futility and the community should rather focus on more easily decipherable and more fruitful pursuits?

Yes. It is entirely possible  (and actually most likely) that we talk about a multitiered AND multiconditioned, also "periodical"  system and in that case...... not only futile, but outright impossible, no matter what  approach is used.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Andrewbassg

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well if this is the case, then the easiest way to 'rig' this is to have a hidden 'switch', potentially even hidden RNG values that single out one team as the intended winner and the other team as the intended loser for any battle. Then there wouldn't be any pattern if this was done on a battle by battle basis. The same RNG switch could also modify anything else in the battle that is RNG based.

Yes, and it seems like this might be the case. This RNG "weighting" could easily apply up the line. One side gets cits and sets fires while the other side suffers. Their goal is for you to play more games...get it over quickly and move on to the next game ASAP all while using resources that they hope you pay for. 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well if this is the case, then the easiest way to 'rig' this is to have a hidden 'switch', potentially even hidden RNG values that single out one team as the intended winner and the other team as the intended loser for any battle. Then there wouldn't be any pattern if this was done on a battle by battle basis. The same RNG switch could also modify anything else in the battle that is RNG based.

Winning and losing to us is important...but whether we win or lose isn't important to WG.

What IS important is whether and how much we spend...and whether and how much we play.

Our obsession with win rates is an obsession that WG doesn't really care about. If you want to look for RNG being not equitable...you need to think in terms of what steps would make WG more money.

[Frostbow]

5 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

I think the evidence exists when you play low tier. The BOTs on one team are good BOTs, smart BOTs, that WASD and hit what they shoot at while the other team has typical moronic BOTs. That's not "random" or coincidence.  7 to 0 and 8 to 1 kill ratios then ensue among said BOTs.

Can confirm. The bots in low tiers are so temperamental, either they are on a killing spree, or they suck like drunks who have just consumed an entire month's ration of whiskey all in one day. 

 

5 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well if this is the case, then the easiest way to 'rig' this is to have a hidden 'switch', potentially even hidden RNG values that single out one team as the intended winner and the other team as the intended loser for any battle. Then there wouldn't be any pattern if this was done on a battle by battle basis. The same RNG switch could also modify anything else in the battle that is RNG based.

I think a healthy way to deal with this is to acknowledge the possibility that there could be other factors implemented by Wargaming that are for obvious reasons, hidden from the public eye, while at the same time, just enjoy the product as it is. At the end of the day, each and every player still has to perform his or her part in the battle, regardless of what the mood of RNG is.

On the other hand, I believe it is unhealthy to accept Wargaming's statements hook, line, and sinker, given the many times they have been 'miscommunicating' to the player base. I also believe that calling a widely respected ship reviewer (who was disrespected by Wargaming) as 'unprofessional' is a clear and present sign of an unbalanced and unhealthy use of the product that is World of Warships.

[Mordt]

I have a question since it’s come up several times. Is it possible to look at the games code? 
 

Also, while I can’t give proof of anything, it does seem like there’s no rigging. Mostly for the reason that I’ve seen so many conflicting posts on the old forum, one saying it’s rigged in for you if you’re on a winning streak, another saying it’s rigged against you if you’re on a winning streak, yet another saying something different. 
 

Kinda points to no rigging if no one can agree which way the rigging is going. 

[SunkCostFallacy]

1 minute ago, Mordt said:

I have a question since it’s come up several times. Is it possible to look at the games code? 
 

 

 

Definitely not.

Not that there's anything suspicious about them not letting people see the code ... it's their most valuable resource.

Open source code renders a product 'unsellable' ... anyone could get the code, and compile it themselves and have a functional system. That's why people who want to profit from open source do so by other means ... selling maintenance, training, that sort of thing.

[Yedwy]

1 hour ago, Mordt said:

I have a question since it’s come up several times. Is it possible to look at the games code? 

One might be able to decompile the stuff you have on your machine like client app or WGC but those have nothing to do with the stuff discussed here as its all server side run

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 hours ago, Mordt said:

I have a question since it’s come up several times. Is it possible to look at the games code? 
 

Also, while I can’t give proof of anything, it does seem like there’s no rigging. Mostly for the reason that I’ve seen so many conflicting posts on the old forum, one saying it’s rigged in for you if you’re on a winning streak, another saying it’s rigged against you if you’re on a winning streak, yet another saying something different. 
 

Kinda points to no rigging if no one can agree which way the rigging is going. 

Well, look at it this way. They have the code to implement things like the super container mercy rule, and while that does not mean they will implement similar coding for other in game features, it implies they can should they want to.

The two things that WG seems to hold dearest are 1) there is an optimum number of battles going on relative to local server time; and 2) the active players maintain a 'healthy' spending habit while they keep playing the game. The big question, then, is if there's a way for WG to make use of 'incremental real time adjustments' through coding to promote these two core goals of WoWS.