Jump to content


Eff, WN4, WN6 and all this bu***it


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

cimajes #1 Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:45 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26470 battles
  • 1,190
  • [-NF-] -NF-
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011
No matter how many new formulas you will create one thing can't be changed:
A player with good eff rating is better than one with bad rating.
Sure, eff is influenced by capping, but capping leads to winning the battle. so, ffs stop doing countless formulas. One is enough to differentiate good players from bad players.

Even if someone is capping on each battle he is more useful than someone with 300eff who never caps but he's spamming "no cap, kill all".

Yes, i'm a stat wh*re, i care about all that stuff because it's the only thing that makes me play WoT.
Yes, i'm not the best player, i'm not even "great".
No, it's not a rage topic against eff

I just want to say that we have onee formula, it's good enough. Would you rather have an afk in your team or a cap wh**e?

Btw, these are my stats, in case you wanted to search me... http://www.noobmeter...majes/500289656

Also:
what is that "performance rating", what is WN4, what is WN6, where are WN1, WN2, WN3, WN5?



tl;dr. A decent player is a decent player no matter how many formulas you people make. So please, stop making these, we already have too many.

As this is a discussion about efficiency ratings and add-ons, I'm moving it to off topic.
- Ectar

Edited by Ectar, 26 January 2013 - 01:55 PM.


pR1sm #2 Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:48 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 15576 battles
  • 268
  • Member since:
    11-26-2010
bu***it stands for?

bullsit?
butthit?

Yamaxanadu #3 Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:53 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011
Well, evolution of ER-system is quite a good thing since people are cunning creatures to find some holes that they could exploit.

View PostpR1sm, on 26 January 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

bu***it stands for?

bullsit?
butthit?
butthurit - just typo. =)

cimajes #4 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:00 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26470 battles
  • 1,190
  • [-NF-] -NF-
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011

View PostYamaxanadu, on 26 January 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

Well, evolution of ER-system is quite a good thing since people are cunning creatures to find some holes that they could exploit.


butthurit - just typo. =)
Well, if it's an evolution we should throw away the old eff rating and use only the latest version.

Woel #5 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:03 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24260 battles
  • 1,355
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

View Postcimajes, on 26 January 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

tl;dr. A decent player is a decent player no matter how many formulas you people make. So please, stop making these, we already have too many.
Why stop making them? Some people actually enjoy dealing with numbers and watching their progress. If you don't like them just ignore them. Basically it's like asking people not to draw pictures (or take photos, etc) of tanks anymore, because we've seen a couple of them already.

PS.: For informations about performance rating read here: http://noobmeter.com/
The WN formulas are what the folks (including statisticians) figured on NA servers after writing a few dozens of pages. Don't really know about the missing WN1-3 and 5 formulas, I suppose they weren't polished enough to become popular.


View Postcimajes, on 26 January 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Well, if it's an evolution we should throw away the old eff rating and use only the latest version.
People are already using them, you can see WN4 and WN6 included on signature generator sites. XVM has just recently added the possibility to use WN6 formula.
I suppose performance rating won't be so popular as the formula is not public (if I remember well).

Edited by Woel, 26 January 2013 - 04:06 AM.


cimajes #6 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:12 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26470 battles
  • 1,190
  • [-NF-] -NF-
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011

View PostWoel, on 26 January 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

Why stop making them? Some people actually enjoy dealing with numbers and watching their progress. If you don't like them just ignore them. Basically it's like asking people not to draw pictures (or take photos, etc) of tanks anymore, because we've seen a couple of them already.

I think it's more like:
Hey, we have a math problem, we know an easy way to get the result, but we should find more and more and more ways.

Why would you want more ways to get that result?

Yamaxanadu #7 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:13 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View Postcimajes, on 26 January 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Well, if it's an evolution we should throw away the old eff rating and use only the latest version.
Nope. It must be kept for comparison.

Captain_Morgan #8 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:18 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27549 battles
  • 322
  • [10POE] 10POE
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011
People like making up new ratings that make them look better than someone else's rating.

To that note I present the first edition of the Captain_Morgan rating, to be known as CM1.

It is based of 1 day stats, the formula is: win rate*kill death ratio*average damage

83.8*4.71*2416=953590(God)

I believe this formula to be the most accurate representation of actual and current skill and within days CM1 will overtake all other rating metrics currently used.

Edited by Captain_Morgan, 26 January 2013 - 04:18 AM.


Woel #9 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:29 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24260 battles
  • 1,355
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

View Postcimajes, on 26 January 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

I think it's more like:
Hey, we have a math problem, we know an easy way to get the result, but we should find more and more and more ways.

Why would you want more ways to get that result?
It's a somewhat competitive game. People like to know where they are exactly compared to others, even if they don't admit it. I couldn't care less myself about stats, but all these numbers are very good indicators of how am I doing. Comparing these numbers to your platoon/clan mates are always good incentives to improve.

The efficiency rate however was much too flawed. It was too easy to exploit it by "capwhoring" and "noob bashing". If I want to compare myself to someone else, I could care less how much he caps or how can he kill players who don't even have the slightest clue of what is going on around them. The other two formulas reduce the importance of these anomalies, therefore you don't get the same result.

cimajes #10 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26470 battles
  • 1,190
  • [-NF-] -NF-
  • Member since:
    02-02-2011
@Yamaxanadu. I guess i can't argue with that ,but i still think that having so many performance formulas is useless. If i have good eff, i most likely have good WN* too, also my performance rating would be also pretty good.
So far i couldn't find anyone with great eff rating and BAD WN* rating.


@Captain_Morgan, I agree with you sir... +1

View PostWoel, on 26 January 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

The other two formulas reduce the importance of these anomalies, therefore you don't get the same result.

Well, a player who got high eff by capping, is better than a player who just got his Lowe, or some 30% of the player base. Indeed, capping is easier than dealing damage, but capping also leads to winning, and, i always believed that the goal of the game is to win.

Rettegett_Ivan #11 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20042 battles
  • 788
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
I dont care about eff and other ratings, since I know: I hate cap, spot, etc I just like tanks and tank battles. And my tanks are great in killing or deal dmg, but cap or spot?  But I clicked this page ( http://www.noobmeter...majes/500289656 ) and it said:  Performance Rating (last 618 battles): 1,699 (Good) So I should be happy? These stats can be manipulated very easily: play in platoons, TC, CW, use OP tanks, use "prem" ammo especially HEAT, no more stock grinding (how I hate..), wait until the enemy almost cap the base and shoot then, etcetc.

Edited by Rettegett_Ivan, 26 January 2013 - 04:46 AM.


Woel #12 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24260 battles
  • 1,355
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

View Postcimajes, on 26 January 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

Well, a player who got high eff by capping, is better than a player who just got his Lowe, or some 30% of the player base. Indeed, capping is easier than dealing damage, but capping also leads to winning, and, i always believed that the goal of the game is to win.
Yes, efficiency rate is a perfect tool to measure the difference between players who probably play like bots and those who are capable of at least pressing left mouse button.
They introduced performance rate and the WN formulas so we can even make difference between players who perform similar. Of course, none of these are flawless. See it as a hobby and amusement for some people.
I don't like stamps and I can't understand why would people collect little pieces of paper with images on them - it sounds totally pointless to me. But if it makes them happy, oh well, what can we do?

HEAT_IQ #13 Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:55 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 54425 battles
  • 126
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
Well as it already been said the efficiency rating had its faults and exploits.
Although WN6 is made by other people than those who made Eff rating, it can be called an evolution of eff r. I could give a stupid example like WoT 0.6.2 and WoT 0.8.0 .
As for why the old eff r is still widely used, people may not trust it yet, it may not be so popular yet, but considering that you can see it appearing everywhere it seems to be becoming the new standard. If you like stupid examples heres another, same as currency cant be instantly changed in a country from (smth) to euro.
As for WN1....WN6 those were most probably versions and the older ones can be ignored just like you would alway use the newest version of software.
And bout Performance rating, well yeah thats another rating version trying to become the new standard, but probably won't as I don't see people having trust in it, as the formula is not publicly available.

and about formula having a difference on peoples ratings, I'll give you 2 examples:
1) exclusively arty player that gains from the new rating
http://www.noobmeter.../player/eu/NBNC
2)Someone who looses out because of caping a lot
http://www.noobmeter...layer/eu/Exesto

Edited by Daed_, 26 January 2013 - 05:08 AM.


Superstar31 #14 Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:13 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13215 battles
  • 290
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011

View Postcimajes, on 26 January 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

No matter how many new formulas you will create one thing can't be changed:
A player with good eff rating is better than one with bad rating.
Sure, eff is influenced by capping, but capping leads to winning the battle. so, ffs stop doing countless formulas. One is enough to differentiate good players from bad players.

Even if someone is capping on each battle he is more useful than someone with 300eff who never caps but he's spamming "no cap, kill all".

Yes, i'm a stat wh*re, i care about all that stuff because it's the only thing that makes me play WoT.
Yes, i'm not the best player, i'm not even "great".
No, it's not a rage topic against eff

I just want to say that we have onee formula, it's good enough. Would you rather have an afk in your team or a cap wh**e?

Btw, these are my stats, in case you wanted to search me... http://www.noobmeter...majes/500289656

Also:
what is that "performance rating", what is WN4, what is WN6, where are WN1, WN2, WN3, WN5?



tl;dr. A decent player is a decent player no matter how many formulas you people make. So please, stop making these, we already have too many.

I agree with u I played like moron until 5k games, thanks to my friend who told me about XVM and that eff thing. After that I am trying my best for me and the team, I am not a cap wh*re I cap when is really needed I grind my eff thru damage, cus my damage points were pretty upsetting after 5k battles (and they still are  :Smile_veryhappy:  but I am working on it). Now I am repairing stats and my game exp.(buying bad played tanks to repair stats with them) :Smile_trollface-3:
I think XVM should be implemented in game so every player can see how is he playing and to be motivated to play well.

For now Performance Rating (overall): 1,416 (Average).

(Thanks for showing that site it is really nice) +1

Edited by Superstar31, 26 January 2013 - 05:14 AM.


Didoguard #15 Posted 26 January 2013 - 05:44 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23619 battles
  • 81
  • [BGA] BGA
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011
Play the game for fun. It's a team game so any rating showing anything in random battles can't be 100 % accurate. The only accurate thing here is CW and other company battles. There you can show the skills of the team as one. In randoms it's just provoking specific types of play. I am not a good player but after a specific amount of battles everybody gets to a point of realization that random battles are just random. You can't have 15 people with the same mind set. If there are 1v1 matches or things like that, then we can talk about skill. The bigger the team the bigger the randomness. Many people use glitches in these "rating" systems to improve their ratings. If I play Object 704 I will get probably twice the rating than playing JgdTiger. No need to explain why. if you played enough you will know. I play the tanks I tend to find fun and enjoyable. Not saying that rating is random but rating and any kind of system of that sort will always be inaccurate. Show me a rating system where the guy with the Maus, blocking a street or a bridge and thus winning the match by providing superior cover for his allies, is rated the top player and get's the most of this rating system. Show me a rating system where sacrifice for the team is counted. There are matches where one can end with over 20-30 hits from enemy and still lives. First enemy hit kills the gun, second kills the gunner, but he/she still can angle the tank, bounce many shells and survive the battle. This guy kept probably half the enemy team occupied while 14 other allies made the easy win. On the other hand we have the "pro" heavy playing as a sniper every game waiting for the "noobs" to spot him something. He is a excellent shooter with his 0.33-0.35 or something like that and scores multiple hits. Next match he repeats the pattern. Hide next to arty, play safe, shoot from distance and be the "pro" of the team with high eff rating. I can keep on going with the wall of text but really the only thing that matters for me in a team game is the team as a whole. Not the individual. I never used a rating system and I will never use probably. Sometimes we can win games by ourselves, sometimes we die first.  Damn, half the time I am playing this game is when I am drunk. Looking at my rating or anything like that and comparing to someone else's is just ... like you have a tiny little thing between your legs and do anything you can to surpass that "manly" feeling and show how great you actually are in a virtual space.  But hey, these are just my 2 cents on this topic. I am not making the rules but I am not following them either. Sheeps will be sheeps for life.

HEAT_IQ #16 Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:02 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 54425 battles
  • 126
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostBlackguar, on 26 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

But hey, these are just my 2 cents on this topic.

Hei hei hei, funny enough but from reading your post I see that you didn't even read about what this topic actually is.

P.S. You must be doing something WRONG with your JTiger. Average per battle I have 2720 dmg with it, with Obj704 my avg dmg is 2780.
P.S.S. That guy behind you back snipeing is also doing his job, and you couldn't win without his support, becuse you know some tanks are better suited for some other things, and in different situations you may have to act differently, or do you imply that I should attack KV1 head on with SU85, or Tiger tank should ram its face into IS (I don't mean situations when its the only heavy tank and would be the armor and hitpoint wall holding the enemy).

Edited by Daed_, 26 January 2013 - 06:12 AM.


KptStrzyga #17 Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:43 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33333 battles
  • 15,649
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2011
In mywotstats.com they have some new sorcery: VE rating. WTF is this now?

HEAT_IQ #18 Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:52 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 54425 battles
  • 126
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostKptStrzyga, on 26 January 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

In mywotstats.com they have some new sorcery: VE rating. WTF is this now?

I'm too curious. Got no Idea what it is and how to find out what it is, not sure if I care, and if this keeps going on I think I will start to have the same feelings as OP about this stuff, if it keeps on.

Urmo345 #19 Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10137 battles
  • 846
  • [EES4] EES4
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012
Now, if you mentioned that noobmeter, i saw that my win rate dropped - damn Ferdi grinding... :Smile_confused:

Radu6 #20 Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 24946 battles
  • 665
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
Why do people need a tool to tell them how good they are? Unless they don't, they need a tool to tell others how good they are.  :Smile_glasses:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users