Jump to content

But RNG isn't rigged right????


Guest

Recommended Posts

A bot with 7 kills as their bots just dominated ours, not even close. But nooooo..no RNG manipulation here at all right?

World of Warships 1_23_2024 7_01_45 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happens all the time. If they weight RNG at one tier what makes people think they don't do it across the board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

A bot with 7 kills as their bots just dominated ours, not even close. But nooooo..no RNG manipulation here at all right?

World of Warships 1_23_2024 7_01_45 PM.png

'Bots be leveling-up, eh?  🙂 
Maybe they dock at islands to search for magic power-up mushrooms to use in their next battle?  🙂 


spacer.png spacer.png 
 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Type_93 said:

T3, co-op, not worth a post. 

not co-op..randoms. And sorry if we don't meet your elite high tier standards. Guess what..the same WG does the same sh*t at all tiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Ok but why RNG... What has to do uneven bot behavior with RNG? 

RNG..whatever..one side gets superior BOTs. therefore the game is manipulated. What stops them from doing similar manipulation at all tiers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kalishnikat said:

not co-op..randoms. And sorry if we don't meet your elite high tier standards. Guess what..the same WG does the same sh*t at all tiers.

They were all bots except for one player on red side. Random co-op. And no, you just need to take your tin foil hat off. RNG isn’t rigged. It’s just RNG. Since when is it elitist to call out crazy theory’s? 

  • Sad 1
  • Bored 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Type_93 said:

T3, co-op, not worth a post. 

 

3 hours ago, Type_93 said:

They were all bots except for one player on red side. Random co-op. And no, you just need to take your tin foil hat off. RNG isn’t rigged. It’s just RNG. Since when is it elitist to call out crazy theory’s? 

I'm glad you don't run the board.  Many levels of inappropriate in that first comment.

RNG is not just rng.  It's whatever you code it to be:  that's computer science, not tin foil hat theory.   It also is one of the most tested aspects of lottery software specifically due to the nature of that beast.  Many gaming companies do a horrible job with it, Blizzard being one of them.

RNGs also don't have to be rigged to be truly poorly implemented.

You could take it down a notch, but you be you.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WG has been rigging results from the beginning. It is in their business model or patent (probably both). 

Weird Bot results where one side gets the much better Bot play result is clear evidence of a CHEAT. 

Bot play, by itself, should always result in a close, one surviving Bot ship result. Any other result with the Bots is a CHEAT.

It is simply amazing how often your teams Bots will do really stupid things yet the other teams Bots manage to play intelligently. This is a CHEAT.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

A bot with 7 kills as their bots just dominated ours, not even close. But nooooo..no RNG manipulation here at all right?

This has less to do with RNG in the match than the RNG of the matchmaker and spawn locations.

Caledon has a good torpedo loadout and a heal. Your team had 2x Java, 2x Bogatyr, a Navarra, plus the battleships -- all without torpedoes. Depending on how the teams spawned, it is probable that the Caledon could just sail through your torp-less bots, calmly dispatching them one by one. Since the bots struggle to shoot accurately, they probably only did chip damage in return, which could be healed.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, torino2dc said:

This has less to do with RNG in the match than the RNG of the matchmaker and spawn locations.

Caledon has a good torpedo loadout and a heal. Your team had 2x Java, 2x Bogatyr, a Navarra, plus the battleships -- all without torpedoes. Depending on how the teams spawned, it is probable that the Caledon just sailed through your torp-less bots and calmly dispatched them one by one. Since the bots struggle to shoot accurately, they probably only did chip damage in return, which could be healed.  

True. One can fairly accurately predict the outcome of these T3 randoms with plenty of bots by the numbers of cruisers on either side with torps. The torpless cruisers bcome easy cannon fodder for the bots with torps. Somehow the bot programming is particularly effective for Caledon, which frequently excels over and beyond the Friants,Tenryus and Tarantos. One way to lessen massive rolls one way or the other at T3 would be to more or less even up the torped v torpless bot cruisers on either side. 

Over and above the issue of torped v torpless cruisers at T3, which generates an enormous advantage or disadvantage accordingly, is the allegation that one team is given A grade bots in general, while the other team is given B to Z grade bots. That is, bots on steroids v sleepwalking bots. This thread obviously voices strong opinions for and against this idea.

Having played almost 1,000 Tier 3 randoms, I am inclined to agree with Kallshnikat that there are very strange things going on with the matchmaker at this tier at least. While it is not possible to prove this in a mathematical sense, there are nonrandom patterns of apparent bias that repeat over and over again on a predictable basis. As a scientist, I observe these repeated patterns and go 'surely not!'. I would like to believe in the mathematical objectivity of the matchmaker and bot programming. But the reality is that based on repeated observation, I don't.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just re-purchased the Caledon and took it out. It is a good ship at tier III-IV. It's torpedoes only travel 6km but they pack a punch. The British AP is also good versus the lightly-armored cruisers found at low tiers. The Wickes, an American torpedo cruiser at tier III, also apparently does a good job if the guy ahead of me on the team is any indication. However, the bot Caledons didn't really do any better than any other bots on the team (the enemy had no Caledons).

xIx91w.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bumblegoose said:

Having played almost 1,000 Tier 3 randoms, I am inclined to agree with Kallshnikat that there are very strange things going on with the matchmaker at this tier at least. While it is not possible to prove this in a mathematical sense, there are nonrandom patterns of apparent bias that repeat over and over again on a predictable basis. As a scientist, I observe these repeated patterns and go 'surely not!'. I would like to believe in the mathematical objectivity of the matchmaker and bot programming. But the reality is that based on repeated observation, I don't.

I think we should be careful in how we interpret phenomena that don't make sense to us. To say that the developer is using "RNG manipulation" is a hefty accusation. In my soon 8 years of playing this game, I have heard plenty of screeching about 'manipulation' or 'rigging'. To date no one has been able to produce a shred of evidence to substantiate such a claim that doesn't get sliced to ribbons by the razors of Hanlon and/or Occam.

What we have seen plenty of, is: faulty programming and inadequate code maintenance. It is far more likely that the bot-AI has some unintended emergent behaviors that the developer doesn't care to / have the resources to address. We should bear in mind that as monolithic as WG may appear from the outside, they have very finite resources to improve things that aren't obvious money-makers. Weird tier 3 bot interactions is probably not high on the list.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I just re-purchased the Caledon and took it out. It is a good ship at tier III-IV. It's torpedoes only travel 6km but they pack a punch. The British AP is also good versus the lightly-armored cruisers found at low tiers. The Wickes, an American torpedo cruiser at tier III, also apparently does a good job if the guy ahead of me on the team is any indication. However, the bot Caledons didn't really do any better than any other bots on the team (the enemy had no Caledons).

xIx91w.jpg

 

 

 

 

Caledon is a reasonable Tier 3 cruiser to play. However, it tends to come off second best if in a gun duel with a human St. Louis or Bogatyr.  Caledon has a vulnerable citadel, which is seldom exploited by bots.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

I think we should be careful in how we interpret phenomena that don't make sense to us. To say that the developer is using "RNG manipulation" is a hefty accusation. In my soon 8 years of playing this game, I have heard plenty of screeching about 'manipulation' or 'rigging'. To date no one has been able to produce a shred of evidence to substantiate such a claim that doesn't get sliced to ribbons by the razors of Hanlon and/or Occam.

What we have seen plenty of, is: faulty programming and inadequate code maintenance. It is far more likely that the bot-AI has some unintended emergent behaviors that the developer doesn't care to / have the resources to address. We should bear in mind that as monolithic as WG may appear from the outside, they have very finite resources to improve things that aren't obvious money-makers. Weird tier 3 bot interactions is probably not high on the list.

Yes, faulty programming and inadequate code maintenance may well be a significant explanation.

Edited by Bumblegoose
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arcus_Aesopi said:

 

I'm glad you don't run the board.  Many levels of inappropriate in that first comment.

RNG is not just rng.  It's whatever you code it to be:  that's computer science, not tin foil hat theory.   It also is one of the most tested aspects of lottery software specifically due to the nature of that beast.  Many gaming companies do a horrible job with it, Blizzard being one of them.

RNGs also don't have to be rigged to be truly poorly implemented.

You could take it down a notch, but you be you.

I guess blaming RNG is better than actually working on your own play. Players that think game companies manipulate RNG or the coding to make things in games work in the development favor is laughable. If anything they would make RNG work in the players favor to bring in more players and more profit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bumblegoose said:

While it is not possible to prove this in a mathematical sense, there are nonrandom patterns of apparent bias

If there are nonrandom patterns, they can be shown by statistical analysis. Show your data or zip your lip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kalishnikat said:

A bot with 7 kills as their bots just dominated ours, not even close.

I've played enough co-op to see bots do really impressive things in and top the team by over 100 base XP, exceeding all the humans. It is entirely possible to have an outlier bot that does extraordinary things, and the effect would be magnified at lower tiers. And yes, in co-op battles where the humans are scarce, you also very definitely (and often) see occasions on which the green or the red bots dominate.

I suspect your main problem was your failure to take the red bots seriously.

Edited by Ensign Cthulhu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ensign Cthulhu said:

If there are nonrandom patterns, they can be shown by statistical analysis. Show your data or zip your lip.

Nonrandom patterns could only be mathematically demonstrated over vast numbers of games.

What I am referring to is personal experience over around 1,00 battles.

I feel it is quite valid to relate personal experience, without any need to 'zip my lip', to coin your impolite expression.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bumblegoose said:

Nonrandom patterns could only be mathematically demonstrated over vast numbers of games.

And yet YOU are making the claim that they are unequivocally present. So, I repeat: defend the claim or retract it. 

  • Bored 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

And yet YOU are making the claim that they are unequivocally present. So, I repeat: defend the claim or retract it. 

If first of all you will retract your rude request for me to 'zip my lip'. Why the ferocious language when I am simply reporting my personal observation? As a PhD scientist with 40 years of experience, I am used to looking at data and noticing patterns. That is all I am doing here.

Edited by Bumblegoose
clarification
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.