1 . Individual information
Basicly the mod provides a couple of information about the player. These informations are amount of games played, efficiency, winrate. The most obvious issue is that all of these things have to be considered a rough orientation, because they are overalls from all tanks. In the game however the player is using a tank from one class only. Some tanks are stronger or weaker. Addionally the tier situation may make some difference and there are situational tanks with can be nasty in some situations, but suck in others.
-Someone only playing stable heavies starts playing fragile tanks
-A T32 can be pretty strong in Tier 8 games, but it is very limited in fighting tier 10 heavies
-E-75 and M103 simply are more versatile than other tier 9 heavies
-A Maus can be really good on Himmelsdorf, but it's very limited on Erlenberg (if there is Artillery)
A big issue reflecting on stats just came up in a conversation in teamspeak. I was raging about the Sandbox-Maus being shit due to only getting T-127 and stuff like this as enemy, but somebody in teamspeak was confused, because he usually gets Loltraktors as enemy with this tank. A while ago I was close to sell my Löwe, because I only got in Tier 10 games at that time while somebody else loved it and that person always was in the 5 highest tanks with that game. Basicly good or bad luck with tiers can reflect very hard on effiency and winrate and currently there is no way to track how lucky or unlucky somebody was with that issue.
The winrate is such a thing. A lot of different game's outcome is concluded into the single winrate, but conditions varry. Company, CW, Random, Platoon all conclude their results in winrate. There is a lot of discussion how much this does, but there can be completely different ways of reaching a winrate. In fact the strongest force in that games are autolosses or idiot-ratios meaning unwinnable or unlosable random games. There is a lot of these going on. Basicly the individual player is one player out of fifteen. Meaning his influence is sort of limited. Player's bullshit a lot about winning games alone, but it can be simply explained with the Kolobanov Medal. What does it mean? Five enemies were to stupid to win a 5on1 and the own team was even stupid enough to get slaughtered by such enemies. Here and there a player can win a game alone, but it needs to be close to some degree. How good is the tank on this map? How is the tank placed tierwise? How well does the tank do on the map? These factors hihly influence how much of a disadvantage the individual can turn into a win. However, if a lemmingtrain gets slaughtered without doing any damage in return and creating a score like 2-12 the game is lost unless the enemy fails to a degree which is more of throwing a game than the own team outperforming the enemy.
A common trademark of hopeless noobs are desperate attempts to turn teamgames into 1on1 games. With all that being said I recommend to ignore winrates in XVM or consider them tertiary oritation. Different percentages of different game modes make that statistic uneven on different players and nobody has a chance to influence the tier situation, maps and iditio ratios in randoms.
The efficiency is a value that simply measures a sum of player acitivity in scouting, damaging, killing, capping and defending. It only measures quantidy, but no quality. Addionally there are some ways to "farm" effiency and different vehicles have different efficiency behaviours. Some people argue that capping effects the rating too much while I explained recently that a deceisive move can't be wrong. My personal issue with effiency are shots on 1% health enemies giving far too much. Still after all the negative points you can see one thing. If an individual doesn't accomulate a certain number of activity something is wrong there. The present XVM colours are quite helpful. A red player is pretty unlikely to contribute positively to a game. A dark red player usually waits somewhere until enemies come and shot him or he hides behind a corner until an enemy with >20% health gets spotted which makes him rush around the corner and get shot. All the non-red players have the same likelyhood to surprise positively and negatively. A dark red player should be considered like somebody going AFK at the position where he is - basicly 15 minus number of dark red players can be applied on your team size. The red player most likely won't contribute to the game, but he usually will be trying to do so which is the difference between both of them.
-Today I had to TK a dark red player, because he was always driving left and right infront of me when sniping dragging aggro at me and saving two enemies. When he saved a 3rd due to ramming me when I was about to shot that enemy I had to kill the closest enemy of 16
-Dark red T-54 camping in the base of Marlinowka in the middle of the bushes getting killed after a few seconds when he was needed on the hill and 4 big TDs made the base more than save
-Red T110E5 firing 20 shots without penetrating a single one of them
-Each team having a top tier player with all stats pink... One getting slaughtered by reds within 90 seconds, the other one god confederate and 3 kills winning a game with "10% win chance"
-An at that time yellow Easy8 getting Confederate, Top Gun and Master gunner in one Game at my gaming corner
When playing games you collect experience, but there are still hopeless cases. However, at a certain number of games somebody is at least likely to have seen everything. I would say you should consider it positively, if somebody has more than 5000 games. Basicly a certain threshold of games makes a difference in experience. The games played number only tells you whethe a player is over or under it.
If some players seem equal you can look for a game count dispersion as secondary orientation and a winrate difference as tertiary orientation.
One specific case are people that grinded tier X tanks in the past, paid for premium and bought premium tanks, but made new accounts for statistics only... This usually looks like 1000-5000 games, over 55% winrate, pink effiency. It might looks good on the paper, but being good is a lot about intellect. Making a new account after all the grinding work only for meaningless statistics indicate serious lacks of braincells and character. This kind of player has to be considered something bad. Usually that kind of player plays some style only directed at farming effiency. It is hard to recognize that player. Some say there are more of them while others say there are less, but they are definetely out there.
-consider dark red players equal to AFKs
-consider red players most likely bad
-consider the remaining ones neutrally
-look for a certain number of games played
-games count can be used as secondary orientation, if players seem similar
-winrate can be used as tertiary orientation, if players still seem similar
-orientation from XVM still is very rough
You can see more in profiles from players, but it still remains rough and the pre-game time is not enough to look 14 players up there.
2. Team Information
XVM stats two chances for the teams. Win chance per based on players and win chance based on vehicles. Actually both should be ignored. Win chance by vehicle is calculated out of overall vehicle statistics, but the individual vehicles in the game can be on difference gear levels (equipment and modules) and there can be huge crew differences. I think WoT can be conidered a medium difficulty game. However, this means the player still has to do some things to utilize the vehicle fully. In the past I wasted time in a very low difficulty game which was only about who gets people matchmade that fail the easy stuff even worse than the other side. As mentioned before there are some situational factors around vehicles which are ignored by overall statics.
Now to the win chance by player. Basicly XVM seems to calculate a win chance out of the player's efficiencies weighting all of them equally. Pretty often you see something like 65% win chance, but all of your top tier tanks are red or dark red while the enemy only has green, dark green and pink top tiers. The medium tiers are similar and the lowest end of the feeding chain caused these "65% win chance" when it actually is broken scrowing of the good lower tier players in one team, because they are at a huge disadvantage. Simply said the value should be ignored, because it would at least need to make efficiencies weightened. Top tier heavies have much more influence than bottom tier heavies, arty can do a lot on Sand River, but has limitations on Himmelsdorf.
How to estimate a chance of winning? The easiest way is summing up black sheeps and their importance. The amounts of red and dark red players and the importance of their vehicles allow a lot. However, if there are no red or dark red players and everybody is above 5000 games you can consider the game a 50/50. However, this scenario is pretty rare. Most random games are pre-determined singlesided stomps with 10 kills or more difference in the final result.
-both win chances are meaningless
-estimate chances based on amounts of black sheeps (red or dark red players) and importance of their positions in the team
-no red or dark red players when everybody has over 5000 games is a 50-50 situations (very rare in randoms)
There are some specific things that effect here and there worth knowing. They will simply be listed
-Artillery usually is poison for efficiency ratings... I doubt that there is anybody running around with pink efficiency after playing most of his games as artillery
-Artillery is highly team dependend... It can be crippled by bad team behaviour while at the same time the combination of good artillery and good tanks has a strong symbiotic effect and can undo a lot of bad players (aka Platoons such as two Batchats and a tier 8 Artillery)
-More fucking up is likely to have more impact than one player doing insanely well
-Insane games need a high contribution of enemies enabling it
-No matter how bad everything looks there always can be a surprising turn of events
-Some people seem to think XVM protects them from bad allies which is wrong... It only shows some statictics but doesn't influence who gets in your team
-Bad indicators can be compared to evidents for crimes... In dubio pro reo... The game isn't lost before it has really turned unwinnable
-Some players have strategies to farm efficiency meaning a player with good effiency can be worse than somebody with bad effiency
-There are far to many ways to farm effiency
-You always should do your best, because that will still grant more credits, EXP and a chance on record rounds or rare medals
-Troll-Platoons are huge handicaps (Tier X + 2 Loltraktors, "We kill each other, because it is allowed in platoons"...)
Player quality varries a lot with tiers of the tanks. In very low tiers you have total beginners. They lack the practice, but they think... f.e. they always help when nearby allies get attacked, they cover all the map instead of doing lemming trains, but they lack practice for good execuation. Addionally they have a lot of map awareness, because they are new and look on everything which makes them notice everything around them. While they ascend in the tiers there is a high chance of bad influence from the community catching them. There are some stupidity examples like somebody being afraid or repair costs playing tier 10 tanks, lemming trains that camp somewhere and let enemies pick them up one by one or waiting until an ally died to have increased chances to get a certain kill. Somewhere in the low-mid tier area there are some pretty tricky tanks that require more learning than others. Some people enjoy them and learn them close to full potencial making such players in these tiers one of the most uncomfortable enemies of the game like good Tetrachs in Tier 2 games or good Pz S35s in tier 3 games or good B1s players in tier 4 games or good Churchills in tier 5 games. In tier 8 you can get people with serious lacks of experience who got a premium tank to have a big imba tank as fast as possible. Tier X has it's own rules. Most tanks are rather easy to play, but you have some of the best players of the game there while the worst players of the game play such tanks a lot. In this tier there is the highest risc of pre-determined results in the game. Basicly the tier X baddies can be like the opposite of beginners. They obviously collected exerperience during the grind, but poor behaviour makes them an ally-denier for their team, because a good player could have played there instead of that player. What I can say is that tiers 8, 9 and 10 are far more likely to have frustrating autolosses than lower tiers.
4. Final Words
I once tried the mod when it was recommended. However, it doesn't change anything going on after the round has started. At this point of time you won't notice a difference. In fact you can predict certain turns of events, but you still only can do your part in a team consisting of 15 players. In the end the mod helps to calm down in some situations, f.e. having a long loss streak even though not doing any mistakes and when suddenly there are good chances of ending that streak you are more motivated to end the streak even faster. Keep in mind that you still only get information about chances from all this. This is because individual skill can only be seen in competetive games which are no part of something that is even called Random Battle. The only thing you will personally feel in other games are the things you got from your credits and experience.
Edited by nerderklaus, 21 October 2012 - 11:33 PM.