Jump to content


[XVM] How to read the information from XVM


This topic has been archived.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

nerderklaus #1 Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:26 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35925 battles
  • 1,306
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
We all know the XVM mod. However due to a lot of confusing things I'll write a little guide on how to read information. I know that it can be configurated to look different or show different stuff, but so far I went with the standard configuration file meaning usage of altered configs might make the subject of that thread not apply in your particular case. The short information post is split in three parts for different issues.


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.

Examples:
-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.

Examples:
-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.

tl;dr
-ignore winrate
-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.

tl;dr
-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)


3. Specifics
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.


Grippin #2 Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:28 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33205 battles
  • 757
  • [SRSLY] SRSLY
  • Member since:
    07-19-2010
Free book! Hellyeah :)

Drochfhoula #3 Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:38 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 106 battles
  • 131
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012
What the hell did i just read

Basically you wrote an entire essay saying you can't rely on XVM , Red players always suck and you threw in an extra 1000 words



Quote

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,

Also I seriously disagree with that , just look at the end of battle reports , there is generally always one guy with 5k damage and you know that he's the one who won the game

Nargar0th #4 Posted 21 October 2012 - 11:52 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7430 battles
  • 265
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011
+1 from me for the hard work.But you didn't say anything new here.And Drochfhoula is right about that,one player can do alot,I know it because I play Object 704  :arta:

nerderklaus #5 Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:22 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35925 battles
  • 1,306
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostDrochfhoula, on 21 October 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

What the hell did i just read

Basically you wrote an entire essay saying you can't rely on XVM , Red players always suck and you threw in an extra 1000 words





Also I seriously disagree with that , just look at the end of battle reports , there is generally always one guy with 5k damage and you know that he's the one who won the game

Look at the replay strictly observing how much the enemy is letting him do that. There is a lot of myths here like holding a flank alone with tier 7 tank when you are in a tier 10 game (old matchmaking), but if the player really does it... Massive fuck up from the enemy... All on him at once, he fires once or twice (depending on RoF), dealing 0-800 damage, but losing all of his HP, the enemies get through the flank and flank the lemming train. The principles behind this are shown in the tank academy video series which are the highest quality tutorials out for this game yet.

Such performances happen and if you would have read it you would know that the red player even does it from time to time like a non-red. Why can either one do that? Because the enemies let him do it. It's like what I wrote abotu the Kolobanov.

It's all about how likely events are, but still everything can happen, f.e. two lucky rack blowups in 15 seconds, 24h disconnect, phonecalls, door ringing, pets going crazy, family, EC-issues.... Or compare it with some examples from real life... On the paper these 556 PVC rifles are so great, but in reality they are not even close to the relyability of the good old steel rifles such as G3.

Edited by nerderklaus, 22 October 2012 - 12:27 AM.


Kitty_Perry #6 Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:33 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20002 battles
  • 796
  • [OMNI] OMNI
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
Yup sometimes you just have those matches were your team is being a total noob(sometimes include me :Smile_smile:) and you feel like the only one who can win the game, and then in the end your heart is poundin and adreneline rushes trough your body as you kill the last enemy granting you a watterfall of credits and XP.

nerderklaus #7 Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:37 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35925 battles
  • 1,306
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
There are a lot of examples I could mention, but what I usually remember are the funny moments like flattening an enemy in Super Mario style or today when one of my Tier 10 players suicide rushed I stole both of his kills as VK28 and even got away (counter trolling for the suicide rush) or such moments like being about to die, but shoting one of the two enemies and ramming the other one or quite recent a cool use of physics on Siegfriedlinie which created flanking of an enemy that wasn't possible without it.

Ding760 #8 Posted 22 October 2012 - 01:46 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Community Contributor
  • 9369 battles
  • 2,984
  • Member since:
    06-18-2011
I'm gonna be honest...

I didn't read the OP's post (MA EYES!!! IT BURNS!!!). But the replies that followed it seems to have summed it up well (as far as I'm concerned)  :Smile_veryhappy:

Still, +1 for anyone who puts in this degree of effort.

YawgmothLordOfPhyrexia #9 Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:58 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12405 battles
  • 110
  • [DUELS] DUELS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 21 October 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

-There are far to many ways to farm effiency
Agreed. I had a terrible efficiency (around 650). I don't mind I know i'm not a good player in random due to my tendencies to rush and be impatient when people don't play their roles properly (scout not scouting, o well I will. Heavy being a coward behind a rock while he should push, o well I try to take initiative etc.) . To play good I really need to team up with a friend in platoon or find a random player that has a natural click in play stile (this only happens sporadic but does happen).
Look the eff calc up saw my eff play around with the values and guess what. I just need to deal 700+ dmg per match and rest cap (base def) more to raise my eff. First did the the dmg part got eff up to 800. Now I reset more often and my ff is now up to 845. This while I do not really do better at fighting!!! Just drove my KV1s more

Edited by YawgmothLordOfPhyrexia, 22 October 2012 - 08:00 AM.


Hippopotamus_Rex #10 Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:51 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19619 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011

View PostDrochfhoula, on 21 October 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

Also I seriously disagree with that , just look at the end of battle reports , there is generally always one guy with 5k damage and you know that he's the one who won the game

Basically it is not true, because the same guy would heve done nothing when left alone. So obviously the rest was serving some other purpose, when he was doing damage, even if it was only taking hits for him.

But they could also be guarding his flank and rear, spotting for him, distracting his targets, so he could strike at their side instead of front armor and so on, many more interesting, yet not fully measurable circumstances could happen to ensure his high damage level.

IT IS TEAM GAME. At least in 15 vs 15 random battle environment, even if it's random, it is still a team. One player has a lot of possibilities to influence the outcome of battle, the better the player, the bigger influence it is, no player is able to "win only on his own".

AngryBanana #11 Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:11 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15234 battles
  • 3,177
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 21 October 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

tl;dr
-ignore winrate
I agree with your point on winrate that it can be farmed in companies/platoons, but since noone farms low winrate, someone with a couple of k games and a winrate <47% is most defenitively dragging his team down. He can't have been getting bad luck all the time when he has had a couple of k battles just because it will even out over large numbers of games, sometimes bad luck other times good luck.
edit:

View Postnerderklaus, on 21 October 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

This is because individual skill can only be seen in competetive games which are no part of something that is even called Random Battle.
this is BS, imagine you have 1 team of random players vs 1 team of 14 random players and 1 good player(meaning better than avg, so better than avg random player), the second team will win more, because on average it has better players, this is excactly how your winrate does reflect your skill(if you don't platoon/company that is). So personal skill does show, even in randoms.

Edited by AngryBanana, 23 October 2012 - 02:26 PM.


AngryBanana #12 Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:18 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15234 battles
  • 3,177
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    05-27-2011

View PostYawgmothLordOfPhyrexia, on 22 October 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Agreed. I had a terrible efficiency (around 650). I don't mind I know i'm not a good player in random due to my tendencies to rush and be impatient when people don't play their roles properly (scout not scouting, o well I will. Heavy being a coward behind a rock while he should push, o well I try to take initiative etc.) . To play good I really need to team up with a friend in platoon or find a random player that has a natural click in play stile (this only happens sporadic but does happen).
Look the eff calc up saw my eff play around with the values and guess what. I just need to deal 700+ dmg per match and rest cap (base def) more to raise my eff. First did the the dmg part got eff up to 800. Now I reset more often and my ff is now up to 845. This while I do not really do better at fighting!!! Just drove my KV1s more
of course more damage/battle and more def points give you a better eff, they mean you played better, you can call doing more damage farming, whilst doing more damage just means you play better. and your avg damage is nowhere near 700+ it is 378, which is rather sad(that is about my avg damage in a BT-2).

Edited by AngryBanana, 23 October 2012 - 02:31 PM.


nerderklaus #13 Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 35925 battles
  • 1,306
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostHippopotamus_Rex, on 23 October 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Basically it is not true, because the same guy would heve done nothing when left alone. So obviously the rest was serving some other purpose, when he was doing damage, even if it was only taking hits for him.

But they could also be guarding his flank and rear, spotting for him, distracting his targets, so he could strike at their side instead of front armor and so on, many more interesting, yet not fully measurable circumstances could happen to ensure his high damage level.

IT IS TEAM GAME. At least in 15 vs 15 random battle environment, even if it's random, it is still a team. One player has a lot of possibilities to influence the outcome of battle, the better the player, the bigger influence it is, no player is able to "win only on his own".

Doing something is a little bit relative... f.e. some AFK getting spotted... A lot of people will shot that AFK instead of more imminent duties so basicly the AFK did do something unlike the non-AFK who waits far away from action in the furthest corner of the pampa. Addionally a lot of important things are not measured in the game or statistics... Criticals, disrupting enemies via pushing, pushing enemies into drowning, taking shots for teammates... Especially things such as management of the camo system or aggro management can influence a game tremendously, but only the fewest of the players with pink stats know these game mechanics.

Basicly winning a random alone could work on the paper, but there are some issues with that. Often it looked possible until my ammo storage was emptied. Other tanks don't have the DpM to kill all enemies from full HP within 15 minutes. Because of that a lot of tanks don't have what would be needed to win 40%+ of the games I am put in.

Addionally as I said already. A single player taking out countless enemies alone is only about the enemy failing. In Counter Strike I was able to take out 15 of the noobs playing on open servers without any help in a single round and this wasn't even something to brag about, because the victims were just pub players meaning the ones that caused the word "ulow" (much worse than a lowskiller) to be invented. However, various damage mechanisms work different in WoT meaning it is not possible to do it like in CS, because you need teamplay. Teamplay and completely randomly composed teams? Very rare...

YawgmothLordOfPhyrexia #14 Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12405 battles
  • 110
  • [DUELS] DUELS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2011
never said it was 700 avrg. said that when i was looking to upgrade my eff if was using KV1S and dealing +700 dmg.

tango_delta #15 Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:29 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11458 battles
  • 2,122
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011
Op does not even try to get a neutral view about this topic but instead has already decided that win ratio is irrelevant before he wrote his first word into his post. All that follows after that is built on that assumption that win ratio must be irrelevant no matter what.

Basically the whole post is a contradictory mess (how can you have bad teams if winning and win ratio is all based on luck? How can you effect negatively to your team's win chance if it is impossible to have an effect at all? How can someone be unlucky when it is statistically impossible to be that much unlucky or lucky with winning and win ratios? What about the correlation of kills and win ratio? How can doing more dmg per battle be meaningless?).

Then he lists some one in a thousand individual cases as some kind of everyday examples or "proof" when we all know those are just one in a thousand extreme cases. But then again when you are on a mission you pick all the facts you like and forget the more... unpleasent and unfitting ones...

The op's idea that win ratio is meaningless gets mentioned very often in the post. All his arguments why that is so are very thin and contradictory at best. I'd guess if you put so many words into a post you'd at some point stop thinking.

I appreciate the effort but I disagree with what was actually said. XVM is a great tool for many reasons and situations but op managed to mention only few in a very twisted way...

YawgmothLordOfPhyrexia #16 Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:07 AM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12405 battles
  • 110
  • [DUELS] DUELS
  • Member since:
    02-06-2011
1)XVM is a tool. Noting more. Yes the numbers say something but are in no way future telling. The way the numbers are crunched by XVM deliverer a suggested result based in its algorithm. Some people (me included) think that this algorithm is biased towards some play styles and miss imported pieces of contribution that are frankly not catchable in the statistics that are present at the moment (properly never will because, how do you calculate/follow the threat someone is presenting to a flank).
2) A tool is only as good as its wielder and in my opinion there are way too many Vocal people (in the forum and game) that use it wrongly
These Vocal people are demoralizing avrage players with their off F* noob team I’m gone mentality.

EraserFS #17 Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:07 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 26281 battles
  • 130
  • [CELL] CELL
  • Member since:
    07-02-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 21 October 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

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.
And since everyone is playing under these conditions the winratio of an average player should be around 50%. The more battles the more the winratio should stabilize around this percentage, assuming there are no differences in skill. Just like throwing a coin, the more often you throw it, the number of each side showing will stabilize at 50%.
After 5k battles a winratio of 60% isnt just luck anymore. A player like that very often contributes to the battle. Doesnt matter what or with whom, with all the conditions he cant influence, also influencing his battles, he often is able to influence the outcome of a battle. I would call that skill, because the majority of players, also influenced by idiot ratios, etc., isnt able to influence the outcome like him, otherwise he would have also 50% win ratio - like the others.

But I agree with most of the other stuff written. XVM is unreliable, yet it gives you a slight idea with whom you are playing and what they are capable of, meaning how reliable they are. Usually when Im in a supporting vehicle (most likely in a low tier battle) I take a quick look at the amount of battles and try to team up with experienced players by supporting them, if they are moving around the part of the map where i can use my tank to its best. Works fine, and maybe that is one of the factors why my win ratio is above 50%...

One additional thing:

View Postnerderklaus, on 21 October 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

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.
This also works the other way, 1 player was clever/skilled enough to not get slaughtered by 5 enemies. You described the worst case, that one is left vs 5 which are at the same position and can rush the left one simultaneously. Most likely the 5 left ones are somewhere scattered over the map and the only left one is just facing 1-3 of them when a 5 vs 1 situation arises. Why? Because the only one left would not be left if he was facing 5 enemies at the same time before or one teammate would be left somwhere... Think about it.
So a clever player tries to prevent this as soon as the 5 vs. 1 occurs with decimating the 5 left ones as fast as possible so he has not to face all of them at the same time. Or lure them into choke points or whatever.
There are a few ways to deal with multiple enemies when being last player left. The more defensive you play the more likely you face these situations and depending on vehicle and map you can do a lot of things. Of course this needs very much experience (knowledge of map, your own vehicle, enemy vehicles; tactical awareness and so on). I would also consider this skill, that enables one to influence a battle in a manner that is shown by an increased win ratio...

Arttu #18 Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:08 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20848 battles
  • 210
  • [FIREX] FIREX
  • Member since:
    02-28-2011
Ignore winrate? People with "good" win rate are more likely to make choices that WILL make team win instead of just for personal success, such as kills, damaging and so on.
People with bad winrate and good efficiency are likely to be those who are capable of playing the game, BUT won't be strategically helping the team to win. They're those who will shoot the opponents properly, but likely lacking situational awareness in pushing, pulling, relocating and actually trying (and occasionally succeeding) to win the game even when all hope is gone.

Consilium #19 Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:44 AM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17015 battles
  • 811
  • [DKAII] DKAII
  • Member since:
    07-15-2011
Lost u there. Why not use ur brain cells and process all 3 informations at once? Im sure with all the colour markings u could even teach a monkey to valuate players. Efficiency and WR are both complimentary for correct valuation and they both make no sense if the guy doesnt have enough battles...

This is how i qualify players:

Firstly the higher tier battle the more relevant stats become, in low tiers stats are unreliable. Under 1k battles - not enough data, prolly a noob, rarely seen in t7+ battles, usually at least 2k battles r needed to draw conclusions


First check ER -
under 800 ( a bot or useless, noob and if has many battles an idiot as well, will die quickly, wont help you, dont bother asking for assistance, prolly doesnt understand english, never trust or leave any vital tasks for him, dies in first 2 mins), WR - not important

800-1000  - bad player, not trustworthy but may react if asked for assistance, WR- below 46%


1000-1200 - average player, can be asked for assistance, can be rallied on depending on WR ( usually he has between 47-53% ), the better WR he has the more u can depend on him ( if WR 43% treat like bad player, if WR over 53% treat like a good player )

1200-1500 - good player, can be trusted, will help u, sometimes worth even taking shots urself instead, WR 51-56%, if WR under 50% treat like average player, if over 56% treat like great player


all better - fully dependable

for arty: with under 800 ER wont do counter, and prone to counter

Also some tanks are harder to play than others like the french. Bat X med is good example. I see only very good players doing some sensible things in this tank, while even decent players like 13k battles, 51% WR and 1250 efficiency often fail in it. Thats actually same story with all french heavies with autoloader and all french meds.

Edited by Consilium, 30 October 2012 - 12:45 AM.


Hippopotamus_Rex #20 Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19619 battles
  • 1,454
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
It looks like I see this

View PostConsilium, on 30 October 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Lost u there. Why not use ur brain cells and process all 3 informations at once? Im sure with all the colour markings u could even teach a monkey to valuate players. Efficiency and WR are both complimentary for correct valuation and they both make no sense if the guy doesnt have enough battles...

This is how i qualify players:

Firstly the higher tier battle the more relevant stats become, in low tiers stats are unreliable. Under 1k battles - not enough data, prolly a noob, rarely seen in t7+ battles, usually at least 2k battles r needed to draw conclusions


First check ER -
under 800 ( a bot or useless, noob and if has many battles an idiot as well, will die quickly, wont help you, dont bother asking for assistance, prolly doesnt understand english, never trust or leave any vital tasks for him, dies in first 2 mins), WR - not important

800-1000  - bad player, not trustworthy but may react if asked for assistance, WR- below 46%


1000-1200 - average player, can be asked for assistance, can be rallied on depending on WR ( usually he has between 47-53% ), the better WR he has the more u can depend on him ( if WR 43% treat like bad player, if WR over 53% treat like a good player )

1200-1500 - good player, can be trusted, will help u, sometimes worth even taking shots urself instead, WR 51-56%, if WR under 50% treat like average player, if over 56% treat like great player


all better - fully dependable

for arty: with under 800 ER wont do counter, and prone to counter

Also some tanks are harder to play than others like the french. Bat X med is good example. I see only very good players doing some sensible things in this tank, while even decent players like 13k battles, 51% WR and 1250 efficiency often fail in it. Thats actually same story with all french heavies with autoloader and all french meds.


I use very similar estimation system. Usually it works, and always even inaccurate (=! false) data is better than no data at all.