Jump to content


Does the Global rating mean anything or should it be ignored?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
42 replies to this topic

Shireknight #1 Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:13 AM

    Player

  • Veteran
  • 12977 battles
  • 2,976
  • [TELOS] TELOS
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010
A few days ago someone posted a link to some kind of stats generator http://wot-news.com/...p/stat/calc/en/ now according to this I'm classed as a good player however looking at my official WG stats I can't help but notice that my Global rating is only 101 which strikes me as amazingly pathetic unless I'm missing something obvious like it starts from -30000 and goes up :D

Is 101 a reasonable score or does it actually not mean diddly squat?

drenzul #2 Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:14 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7430 battles
  • 507
  • Member since:
    02-04-2011
Means nothing.

Is more about # of games played than skill

Zipzag #3 Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:26 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    01-08-2011
It only matters to stat whores

jkksir #4 Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:08 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 27558 battles
  • 273
  • [DAC] DAC
  • Member since:
    08-28-2010
Even though i say that ratting means something in this game,the Global Rating doesen't mean shit most of the times.The GR is very influenceable by the number of games played and average xp per battle(the xp is with premium or with not,,so you can have a big GR only because you have prem).Now the rating mod is what it counts if you want a clear description of a player standings.

kettenpuma #5 Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:12 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22155 battles
  • 123
  • [E-A-K] E-A-K
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011

View Postjkksir, on 14 May 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

doesen't mean shit most of the times
How about the formula for a straight picture?

jkksir #6 Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:19 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 27558 battles
  • 273
  • [DAC] DAC
  • Member since:
    08-28-2010

View Postkettenpuma, on 14 May 2012 - 05:12 AM, said:

How about the formula for a straight picture?

I didn't really understand your question,but look at this.Your Global Rating is 457 and mine is 252.Ok so mine is lower.Now your efficiency is 1234,4 and my efficiency is 1458.31.So there is a clear discrepancy between the 2 calculated ratings.The efficiency rating(XVM) takes into account damage,spots,caping,defending and win ratio(not in this order),so it doesen' get screwed up by prem account or not.

Styrr #7 Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:37 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13819 battles
  • 180
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011
GR shows how much do you play and the efficiency how good.  by me the GR is 135 if we just see this then i'm worst than average but my efficiency is 1521 so this speaks other.

D0va_SPALE #8 Posted 14 May 2012 - 05:53 AM

    First Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 16476 battles
  • 2,184
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

Quote

The efficiency rating(XVM) takes into account damage,spots,caping,defending and win ratio(not in this order)

No.

Win ratio has no influence on your efficiency, only damage, spots, capping, defending and average tier level do.

Fum #9 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:04 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9024 battles
  • 2,061
  • [FAIL] FAIL
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostShireknight, on 14 May 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

Is 101 a reasonable score or does it actually not mean diddly squat?

Mine's 28 :lol:

The global rating is a sum of numbers without regard for stats per battle. So if anyone would have 100 000 battles played, he would be the number one player, even if he is almost useless in all battles. That is because GR is total damage done plus total experience plus total battles plus total capture points plus total etc..... The more battles the higher the total will be. No matter if you do 1000 damage per battle or 100, if you got more, you have a higher ranking.

D0va_SPALE #10 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:07 AM

    First Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 16476 battles
  • 2,184
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

View PostFum, on 14 May 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

Mine's 28 :lol:

The global rating is a sum of numbers without regard for stats per battle. So if anyone would have 100 000 battles played, he would be the number one player, even if he is almost useless in all battles. That is because GR is total damage done plus total experience plus total battles plus total capture points plus total etc..... The more battles the higher the total will be. No matter if you do 1000 damage per battle or 100, if you got more, you have a higher ranking.

But if you are any good, in time your GR will go up a lot. Once you hit the 200-300 mark, and if you're any good, it will start rocketing up from there.

RubyRhod #11 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:12 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12748 battles
  • 190
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011
I think stats are very important, because they clearly show YOUR performance.

Example:
You are driving your M4 in a team of T9 and T8, some T7, T6 and you. Your top tanks are afk or play lemming train, now you are against E-75 and IS-3. Clearly you can manage that and if you don't, it's your own fault.

So.. as I said: stats clearly show your and only your performance - not the MM's mood.

D0va_SPALE #12 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:15 AM

    First Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 16476 battles
  • 2,184
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

View PostRubyRhod, on 14 May 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:


So.. as I said: stats clearly show your and only your performance - not the MM's mood.

Usual ******** from a player with low stats. If you play 500 battles on the said sherman, the randomness evens out, since you get as much as good teams as you get bad teams. Stats show how good a player is, to an extent, provided he has enough battles.

Ludwigmeister #13 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:18 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9110 battles
  • 44
  • Member since:
    11-12-2011
Obviously to each his own since someone who stubbornly believes in something is less likely to change their view even when presented with new and valid information... and people will think what they think but my argument is simply one based on logic;

Any calculation that considers collective stats/data (such as win rate) cannot reflect your individual "ability", thats logical falacy.  Think of your favorite sport.  Think of that really awesome player that is on that not so great team.  (Like when dive teams put up big money for one or two key players in hopes they'll turn things around).  Is it fair to say that player is crap, simply because his team lost most games?  What if he averages two touchdowns/ goals per game?  It would be ridiculous to suggest he's no good.  Or an even easier example to grasp is the opposite.   Think of the team that is considered the best if your favorite sport... do the shitty players on that team deserve to be considered awesome because they happened to be on the winning team?  Logically no... but people will still ague the point because they don't think logically, while telling themselves they do.

kettenpuma #14 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:19 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22155 battles
  • 123
  • [E-A-K] E-A-K
  • Member since:
    05-10-2011

View PostStyrr, on 14 May 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

efficiency how good
No, not really. When you grind a lot of different tanks and don't play an extremely effective high tier tank a lot, then your effeciency will stay relatively low. For example, it takes a long time for the stats to recover from a tier 9 grind, without the expense of free XP, with a new 75% crew and equipment. Do these statistics really tell something about the qualitys of a player? I dont think so. The stats whores are the real noobs.

Fum #15 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:23 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9024 battles
  • 2,061
  • [FAIL] FAIL
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View PostD0vahkiin, on 14 May 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

But if you are any good, in time your GR will go up a lot. Once you hit the 200-300 mark, and if you're any good, it will start rocketing up from there.
Nope. If you're an insanely good player who can win solo battles against 5 tanks, capture the enemy flag alone while defending base, counter-arty with a medium, kill scouts in 1 second etc, you still will have a very low GR unless you played 10 000 battles or more.

pr0wiant #16 Posted 14 May 2012 - 06:26 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 23464 battles
  • 87
  • [1PADX] 1PADX
  • Member since:
    09-25-2010
Look at Cez tanks (ms-1, pzII...) rating: 1877.84
I play almost everythig - rating: 1685.17

Better look at dmg/battle and hit ratio than on global rating.

elkine #17 Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:15 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 7573 battles
  • 27
  • Member since:
    05-12-2011
There's another aspect to Global Rating: it decreases over time if you don't play (or even if you play less battles per day).

I think it depends not on the numbers (battles played, kills, damage and so on) but rather on the standings compared to others.
For example, if you're among the best in one field (such as tank spotting), you get a huge boost to the global rating even if you're not so good elsewhere.

Edited by elkine, 14 May 2012 - 07:16 AM.


Nikola_Bathory #18 Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:18 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Translator
  • 14791 battles
  • 1,044
  • [HWBG] HWBG
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
I don't use it. It meams nothing. This is not a game of skill and all player are complete n00bs, so...

generalgrant #19 Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:33 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13077 battles
  • 681
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
The number of battles you've fought in seems to be the biggest determinant of Global Rating.  It also seems to be a function of how many tanks you've driven, and their tier.  More tanks = higher rating, higher tier = higher rating.  Everytime I've added a higher-tier tank, and driven only a handful of battles in it, my Global Rating has ticked up a few points, no matter what the results in the tank.

MegaDeth999 #20 Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:41 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3 battles
  • 72
  • Member since:
    04-28-2012

View Post100lec, on 14 May 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

Look at Cez tanks (ms-1, pzII...) rating: 1877.84
I play almost everythig - rating: 1685.17

Better look at dmg/battle and hit ratio than on global rating.

problem with hit ratio is that it's irrelevant, it only tells if you're careful with your spending and not if you're efficient.

I snap shot often, especially when i just arrived in a sniping position and it takes 5-6 seconds for the tank to stop moving and the reticle to close , enough for the gun to reload too i.e. free shot instead of wating .. the odds of landing ? low , but i get more dpm

Also if playing tier 4 vs tier 7 ( btw , how retarded can the MM get eh ? ) i often use my shots to track moving vehicles or demolish buildings and I always do this with low skill crews resulting in abysmal hit ratings.

Dmg per battle is pointless if the players compared have played hundreds of tier 4 games vs 10000 tier 10 games. By your rules i am a terrible player.

Edited by MegaDeth999, 14 May 2012 - 07:43 AM.