Jump to content


Quality Rating 2 - designed to favour non-pad gamestyles


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

nerderklaus #1 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
A while ago I made the quality rating knowing that any of these ratings has certain reliability issues and only intending to weaken some statpadding patterns. However, the fact that it required dossier data caused some bad responses. The main goal was to to something about people who get easy unicum by making new accounts after learning the game while others still have their first games with not knowing maps, weakspots and tactics dragging them down.

Criticals and damage upon spotting often were requested for such ratings and as they do something they actually are obligatory in such ratings. The closest thing to replace that would be experience. A choice has to be made here between having all actions accounted or a distinct disadvantage for non-premium users. However, the fact that most people using such ratings do a lot of high tier battling it is most likely that the vast majority of concerned players uses a premium account and thereby it is not a problem.

Criticals also go hand-in-hand with the removal of frags from this. I actually thing the frag should be more handled like a crtical as you can check wih the wot-news calculator that things like an ISU with 500 damage done and 5 kills gets too much score for that. So I thing the ideal integration of kills into such a system would be a fragment like "(kills+crits)*factor". As this is not existing they are left out as compared to efficiency the weighting of damage is improved.

Stats which are likely to be abused by padding are changed in the calculation. More or less the rating forces an amount of that is natural to be obtained, but overdoing it doesn't pay of as in other formulas. The concerned ones are spotting, capping, defending.

A system to punish people who make new accounts for statistics has been integrated. At the same time it more or less grants players a learning curve aka doing bad in their beginner time. While granting a natural process to happen it punishes abusement. This part of the rating makes it crush any other rating. Compared to other ratings this one doesn't restrict players in their vehicular selection. Restriction of the vehicular selection equals WorstNonsense as it is a big advantage of WoT to be able to be able to jump between game levels unrestricted.

Thanks to the integration of average experience the rating incorporates other stats/value such as damage upon spotting, criticals and winrate too. A direct winrate won't be used as luck in randoms, companies and platooning with two way better players can stack up to a lot and would open a padding opportunity [removed]
Final rating:

QR2 = {damage*(0.6 + 1.5/level)+200.0*[(ln spotted)+1]+150.0*[(ln defense)+1]+150.0*[(ln capture)+1]}{[ln(games/15000)]+1}{avg.EXP/666}

Some brackets have are not necesarry and the "{}" are not conform to the norm, but it is simply written for visualization purposes this way. Ofcourse in the formula all these brackets would be normal ones when performing a calculation.


Issues left unsolved:
-impact of massive converting around bad tanks and stock periods -> probably it won't ever be possible to solve this effective padding method Edit: if possible a formula with the size of a filled A4 page might do
-"frags" -> requires isolated critical damage stats
-stat-accounts reaching like 10-20k battles -> probably the weighting of this will have to be increased when it happens)
-the rating only works on total statistics

Advantages compared to other ratings:
-no tank choice restriction
-no abuse of cap, def and spot possible
-learning curve granted
-new accounts for stats are punished (highly effective padding method)
-more values/actions are incoporated
-things like 600 damage topgun ISU won't profit that much

Disadvantages compared to other ratings:
-only useful to compare experienced players (not that big of a deal as the comparisons between such are the important ones)
-temporary solution as stat-accounts sooner or later reach such game numbers

Clear victory in comparison. As it is made to remove flaws of existing rating system and uses innovations from the first installment of this rating series this can be considered a second generation rating.


Please refrain from naming and shaming.
Topic moved to off topic. Rating discussions are not part of the gameplay section.

Kr4zy

Edited by Kr4zy, 04 March 2013 - 08:58 PM.


D0va_SPALE #2 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:33 PM

    Captain

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 18664 battles
  • 2,068
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011
I love how you still refer to good playing as "statpadding patterns"

:d

Edited by D0vahkiin, 08 February 2013 - 04:34 PM.


Nirvana #3 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:39 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18988 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011
Your obsession with what you call stat-padders is rather amusing.

GiveThemNothing #4 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8536 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013
Lol. average xp is epic fail. Premium/nonpremium, TC/nonTC... your rating sucks.

You are quite obsessed about stats for someone who says all the time he doesn't care for them and that they can be padded so easy.

Answer me, if they can be padded so easily, then why are you so average?

nerderklaus #5 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
Some saying are just prooved again and again. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link for example or "Getroffene Hunde bellen am lautesten" -> Hit dogs bark loudest :)

View PostGiveThemNothing, on 08 February 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

You are quite interested in stats for someone who says all the time he doesn't care for them and that they can be padded so easy.

Well, it's more or less solving the purpose to screw the fun of most of these people and proof who is incapable of math. 15 minutes of work are sufficient to overcome countless hours by others. I am amused :)

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 04:47 PM.


maeh_schaf #6 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:45 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19005 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011
so this is your formula:
QR2 = {damage*(0.6 + 1.5/level)+200.0*[(ln spotted)+1]+150.0*[(ln defense)+1]+150.0*[(ln capture)+1]}{[ln(games/15000)]+1}{avg.EXP/666}

200.0*[(ln spotted)+1] => promotes suicidal scouting
150.0*[(ln defense)+1]+150.0*[(ln capture)+1] => promotes cap and decap collecting
avg.EXP/666 => although the intetion is good you completely forgot that the avg. exp counts in premium accounts, so you will always degrade free to play gamers

my conclusion:
- the bad things from efficiency rating are still there
- it even goes worse with the avg exp (normaly i would say the avg exp is the only indicator you need to see how good a player is. the only problem is, that it is not normalized!)
- take a look at WN6 and forget that thing.

D0va_SPALE #7 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:46 PM

    Captain

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 18664 battles
  • 2,068
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

View PostNirvana, on 08 February 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Your obsession with what you call stat-padders is rather amusing.

Yup, especially when considering anyone better than him has "clear stat patterns" and he apparently reads them perfectly. Yup, according to his words, he could win any high rating player there is because he can read them.

Yes.

And that's why Nerderklaus is in the top of all HoF lists.

Quote

Hit dogs bark loudest

:d

Edited by D0vahkiin, 08 February 2013 - 04:47 PM.


GiveThemNothing #8 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8536 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Well, it's more or less solving the purpose to screw the fun of most of these people and proof who is incapable of math. 15 minutes of work are sufficient to overcomes countless hours by others. I am amused :)

I am highly capable of math and I don't get what you want. Your rating has epic flaws, such as the fact that players with premium in TCs have much higher rating than players without and in randoms.

maeh_schaf has already listed some other epic flaws.

The 15 minutes time wasted for what? Proving some guys you don't even know are maybe 5% better or worse in a PC game than before? Get a life.

Ioituma #9 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10041 battles
  • 1,964
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
Still looking for the formula that will show once and for all to the world that nerderklaus is the bestest.

nerderklaus #10 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
A pubstat noob at math is like a woman driving.

View Postmaeh_schaf, on 08 February 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

so this is your formula:
QR2 = {damage*(0.6 + 1.5/level)+200.0*[(ln spotted)+1]+150.0*[(ln defense)+1]+150.0*[(ln capture)+1]}{[ln(games/15000)]+1}{avg.EXP/666}

200.0*[(ln spotted)+1] => promotes suicidal scouting
150.0*[(ln defense)+1]+150.0*[(ln capture)+1] => promotes cap and decap collecting
avg.EXP/666 => although the intetion is good you completely forgot that the avg. exp counts in premium accounts, so you will always degrade free to play gamers

my conclusion:
- the bad things from efficiency rating are still there
- it even goes worse with the avg exp (normaly i would say the avg exp is the only indicator you need to see how good a player is. the only problem is, that it is not normalized!)
- take a look at WN6 and forget that thing.

Well, I can simply proof why so many people believe in WN6 which is the worst out of all these ratings.

Value -> result of the ln-part
0,5 -> 0,31
1 -> 1
1,5 -> 1,41
2 -> 1,69
2,5 ->1,92
3 -> 2,10
3,5 -> 2,25
4 -> 2,39
4,5 -> 2,50
5 -> 2,61

The effect of overdoing descents step by step. Probably he number added to the ln needs some fine tuning, but that requires more research. The big thing is that all these other ratings can't recognize that neutral playstyle simply obtains a certain amount of this so not doing so should decrease the rating while overdoing it doesn't have the same impact as on the other ratings.

About these other clowns: what do you exspect from people who name themselves after the club of catastrophical fail-decisions?

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 04:59 PM.


Tank_Killer1 #11 Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:59 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 61534 battles
  • 1,635
  • [ASOSX] ASOSX
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
Over the past 7 days I've played my T20 for 230 games and managed a 71.3% win ratio. Would you call that stat padding?? I wouldn't I choose a tank that fits my style and try to do as well as possible with it.

nerderklaus #12 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostTank_Killer1, on 08 February 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Over the past 7 days I've played my T20 for 230 games and managed a 71.3% win ratio. Would you call that stat padding?? I wouldn't I choose a tank that fits my style and try to do as well as possible with it.

What does that have to do with padding? In the summer when I was clanless I played my first 100 IS-7 games and had 70% at that number without getting ER or WN, because damage upon spotting kept the exp over 900.



View PostGiveThemNothing, on 08 February 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

I am highly capable of math and I don't get what you want. Your rating has epic flaws, such as the fact that players with premium in TCs have much higher rating than players without and in randoms.
maeh_schaf has already listed some other epic flaws.
The 15 minutes time wasted for what? Proving some guys you don't even know are maybe 5% better or worse in a PC game than before? Get a life.

At the same time a TC gets almost no experience when losing, you still got to do something to win and the multiplicator for it is indirectly reduced by having less tanks there compared to randoms. The amount of CW is low compared to the rest and the opponents are usually stronger meaning these extra points don't make much difference and are somewhat justified. Ahh well, I was capable to earn money to just lay back for the rest of the year early in the last one. In some months more than a judge. So I wouldn't worry about my life :)

The deception of that guy you mentioned was proven the opposite already.

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 05:15 PM.


GiveThemNothing #13 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:13 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8536 battles
  • 686
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013
nerderklaus make your own rating where you are unicum and everything is fine. Maybe you count the numbers of premium vehicles on tier 8 or the number of games above 20.000?

Well, except that no one besides of you will be using it.

Some people just can't live with the fact of still beeing average after thousands of games... sad.

jabster #14 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12535 battles
  • 23,101
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

What does that have to do with padding? In the summer when I was clanless I played my first 100 IS-7 games and had 70% at that number without getting ER or WN, because damage upon spotting kept the exp over 900.





At the same time a TC gets almost no experience when losing, you still got to do something to win and the multiplicator for it is indirectly reduced by having less tanks there compared to randoms. The amount of CW is low compared to the rest and the opponents are usually stronger meaning these extra points don't make much difference and are somewhat justified. Ahh well, I was capable to earn money to just lay back for the rest of the year early in the last one. In some months more than a judge. So I wouldn't worry about my life :)

The deception of that guy you mentioned was proven the opposite already.

Why do you find it so difficult to understand that the majority of the players who have higher win-rates than you are just better players than you?

nerderklaus #15 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
How many gaming archievements do you have? 0 or 0,0? So who is average? I mean I did prove myself on multiple occasions while people like you only can show abuse of broken systems as archievement? Ofcourse the people will always use ratings where they have windows for abuse such as capficiency or worstnonsese6. No brain and no heart :)

lonigus #16 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 32631 battles
  • 7,996
  • Member since:
    09-26-2011

View PostGiveThemNothing, on 08 February 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

nerderklaus make your own rating where you are unicum and everything is fine. Maybe you count the numbers of premium vehicles on tier 8 or the number of games above 20.000?

Well, except that no one besides of you will be using it.

Some people just can't live with the fact of still beeing average after thousands of games... sad.

Oh crap right in the soft parts... Nailed it lol.

Ioituma #17 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:20 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10041 battles
  • 1,964
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

I mean I did prove myself on multiple occasions
:Smile_veryhappy:

nerderklaus #18 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 45508 battles
  • 1,502
  • [HARDS] HARDS
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
Ohh, now I know how Galilei felt between all these morons stupid enough to believe in geo-centricity. Ahh well, complainers here aborted school before such topics had to be learned.

View Postjabster, on 08 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

Why do you find it so difficult to understand that the majority of the players who have higher win-rates than you are just better players than you?

Hahahhaa, fail troll. Go complain about pedobears :)

Edited by nerderklaus, 08 February 2013 - 05:28 PM.


Nirvana #19 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18988 battles
  • 1,675
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

How many gaming archievements do you have? 0 or 0,0? So who is average? I mean I did prove myself on multiple occasions while people like you only can show abuse of broken systems as archievement? Ofcourse the people will always use ratings where they have windows for abuse such as capficiency or worstnonsese6. No brain and no heart :)

You did prove yourself? I must have missed that, happen to have any links?

I also like how you awesome your replies to accusations of being average are.

I just wish I met you in game more, hopefully on the enemy team. So far I bumped into you just once, on my team. Frankly, I wasn't impressed.

chaos7 #20 Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28038 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View Postnerderklaus, on 08 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

I mean I did prove myself on multiple occasions

Gotta give him credit for that one. He proved unicum trolling skills (albeit unintentional) time and time again.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users