Jump to content


WN8 MEANS NOTHING


  • Please log in to reply
284 replies to this topic

landlord01 #1 Posted 22 February 2015 - 09:55 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 26205 battles
  • 23
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

as far as i can see loads of people are raving about wn8 and how everyone else is doing.... wn8 means nothing.....you can be a great player , score loads of kills , survive battles but have a lousy wn8 because the rest of the team screwed up and the battle was lost .

     a far more accurate scoring system to compare players would be KILL RATIO . how many of the enemy can you kill. 

 

 

EDIT

     just to add .... if like me you have spent a long time reserching different tanks , i've a present tryed 144 different tanks , thats a 144 tanks too take thru the grind of small gun slow engine etc etc.....all the time getting shot to hell , because thats life and what you have to do .. but your wn8 will look like hell .


Edited by landlord01, 22 February 2015 - 10:39 AM.


Doktorszigor #2 Posted 22 February 2015 - 09:56 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8493 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    05-26-2014


szczerbo1507 #3 Posted 22 February 2015 - 09:58 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 26651 battles
  • 1,680
  • [P_R_T] P_R_T
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010

View Postlandlord01, on 22 February 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

but have a lousy wn8 because the rest of the team screwed up and the battle was lost .

     a far more accurate scoring system to compare players would be KILL RATIO . how many of the enemy can you kill. 

 

WN8 is pretty ok (a bot will be still a bot, a good player is good), but there is no ideal indicator of skill.

Kill ratio is bad, as you can camp at base and steal frags.



Vestrick64 #4 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:01 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11496 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View Postlandlord01, on 22 February 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

you can be a great player , score loads of kills , survive battles but have a lousy wn8

No, you can't. It's statistically impossible due to how this game works.



cu_chulainn_ #5 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48458 battles
  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    02-26-2014
Wn8 also includes kills as far as I know. 

SlyHuntsman #6 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:07 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19160 battles
  • 198
  • [BC-X] BC-X
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

Well, if WN8 means nothing but kills do, you are a bad player. If WN8 matters then again you are a bad player.

 

But if we were to use average damage dealt, one of the best stats to gauge a rough rating of 'skill' for a player, again you are bad. Your main tiers are 5-6-7 and you have less than 300dmg average. Good work.

 

But in a wider view I find that you can get players who do bad, but try to play. Put me in a team of average players who try to work as a team rather than a team of 'good' players who camp for kills any day.


Edited by SlyHuntsman, 22 February 2015 - 10:08 AM.


Nebulosa #7 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:10 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 39246 battles
  • 615
  • [-LOA-] -LOA-
  • Member since:
    12-28-2010

View PostYuri_Yslin, on 22 February 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

No, you can't. It's statistically impossible due to how this game works.

 

"Statistically impossible" does not exist. Technically, the thread starter is right, if all odds are against you, you could really be the best player ever and look like a tomato. It is even more likely than the well-known theoretical scenario that for a few seconds, the randomly moving molecules in your body all move in the same direction, cooling you down to absolute zero and lifting you upwards. 

 

It also has to be noted that WN8 does not directly predict your performance. It's much like IQ-tests, which do not actually measure IQ, but how well you perform at IQ-tests, which are designed so that intelligence will probably make you score better.

 

So, yes, you could be a very good player and appear worse. But at least in the range where a few thousand of battles are involved, the predictability of WN8 is however so high that there are probably no more than a few dozens of players who's WN8 deviates in a significant way from what their actual skills (whatever that is) are.

 

So for all relevant purposes, good WN8 means good player. And doing lots of kills and damage, but always losing probably means basecamper.

 

 


Edited by Nebulosa, 22 February 2015 - 10:11 AM.


Troubledove #8 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:12 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 45589 battles
  • 2,386
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011
Your 47.38% WR after fighting 24,251 battles impresses me so much that I automatically take you as ultimate and final truth.

Vestrick64 #9 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:14 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11496 battles
  • 6,210
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostNebulosa, on 22 February 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

 

"Statistically impossible" does not exist. Technically, the thread starter is right, if all odds are against you, you could really be the best player ever and look like a tomato.

No, you can't.

 

Go to Wotlabs and get educated how those stats work in the first place.



jabster #10 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:16 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12806 battles
  • 26,640
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostNebulosa, on 22 February 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

 

"Statistically impossible" does not exist. Technically, the thread starter is right, if all odds are against you, you could really be the best player ever and look like a tomato. It is even more likely than the well-known theoretical scenario that for a few seconds, the randomly moving molecules in your body all move in the same direction, cooling you down to absolute zero and lifting you upwards.

 

 

The problem is that WN8 is heavily weighted towards doing damage so it seems difficult to see how you could be the best player ever and have a bad WN8 - matches really aren't won just by spotting.

SlyHuntsman #11 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:16 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 19160 battles
  • 198
  • [BC-X] BC-X
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostTroubledove, on 22 February 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

Your 47.38% WR after fighting 24,251 battles impresses me so much that I automatically take you as ultimate and final truth.

 

Ok I have 54% WR what do I get? WR should only really be looked at at extreme ends, 47-53% is too close to judge someone, but in this case it does seems to correlate to the OP's 'skill'

speedphlux #12 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:23 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49827 battles
  • 1,948
  • [TZAR] TZAR
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011

Solo-WR would've been better then WN8. Or AvgBaseXP.

Unforutnately, you can't track these stats, so we're stuck with WN8. It's far from perfect, but its better then anything else we've came up with so far.



Troubledove #13 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:24 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 45589 battles
  • 2,386
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011

View PostSlyHuntsman, on 22 February 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

 

Ok I have 54% WR what do I get?

 

Approval to platoon with me and be treated like equal. You pull your weight and then some.

FeuerSturm91 #14 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14293 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

WN8 as well as Wargaming's own "Personal Rating" are just indicators, you cannot measure "skill" in definite numbers, but you get a good idea of what

kind of "performance" you can actually expect from yourself and from others. There's just too many factors (platooning and RNG for example) for a definite

assesment, but I am pretty sure that the indication is correct.



GrumblingGrenade #15 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:29 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 6008 battles
  • 2,204
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

I don't pay attention to this "WN8" most of the time, as it seems to me that many of those who do morally elevate themselves above all other players, excluding the ones that have a higher "WN8" than them - almost like a Totem Pole. I find that those who are obsessed with their statistics really should re-evaluate their priorities in life. I'm not being mocking, and I'm keeping the snobbery to a minimum, and I will say that if you take pride in your statistics, then go right ahead, as it is good to show interest and pride in something that you are capable at. However, I find it somewhat pitiful when, during an argument, or in order to put a point across during a discussion, one of the participants in the feuding will almost certainly refer to "WN8", as if it's some form of metaphorical vantage point, though all it shows me is that they have lost the argument and are now tossing throwaway comments at the other. Of course, there are exceptions to this. For example, if someone calls you a "Noob" and you have better statistics than them, then I see no problem in correcting them, though I see "WN8" being dragged into arguments way too often; in many of these occurrences, "WN8" is completely irrelevant anyway.

 

Despite this, I don't disagree with those who say that "WN8" is an adequate form of measuring individual player skill. Of course it isn't perfect, as there is no wholly "ideal" method of calculating skill and condensing it into an understandable form, however, I find that "WN8" does the trick, and if the majority of the WoT community have taken to it, then what's the problem? They're happy, and if they're happy, I'm happy. "WN8" does display skill well enough. For example, looking at my "WN8", it says that I am hovering around the "Average" mark, which seems about right, (maybe a little exaggerated though - I'm not that good). "WN8" does mean something in reference to skill, however, the OP has not put into context what he means by "WN8 Means Nothing". Does it mean nothing to you, or nothing in terms of skill, or nothing at all? Elaboration is needed here, which may explain the nature of my fairly long-winded answer.

 

Don't worry, I'll do it all for you: TL;DR

:P



Troubledove #16 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:31 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 45589 battles
  • 2,386
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011

You want to debunk the WN8?

 

Then find me player with good winrate and bad WN8. Show me someone who contributes to team wins but does not get credited from it in these measures.

 

Stage is yours.

 

 



lemthepimpmeard #17 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:44 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 27450 battles
  • 4,253
  • Member since:
    08-24-2012

View Postlandlord01, on 22 February 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

as far as i can see loads of people are raving about wn8 and how everyone else is doing.... wn8 means nothing.....you can be a great player , score loads of kills , survive battles but have a lousy wn8 because the rest of the team screwed up and the battle was lost .

     a far more accurate scoring system to compare players would be KILL RATIO . how many of the enemy can you kill. 

 

No, you really can't.

Although WN8 is more weighted to damage than kills (where WN7 was overly weighted to kills) if you're contributing to your team you have a higher WN8 on the back of it.

Pure killcount means nothing on its own nor does WN8 on its own but together they do.

 

Over 1 or 2 games WN8 doesn't mean much but over a lifetime of an account it absolutely does.

 

 



FeuerSturm91 #18 Posted 22 February 2015 - 10:45 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14293 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostTroubledove, on 22 February 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

[...]Then find me player with good winrate and bad WN8. Show me someone who contributes to team wins but does not get credited from it in these measures.

 

Just for the sake of clarity, please elaborate on "good winrate" and "bad WN8", because without some numbers you could say that we already have an example here:

My Winrate: 52.13% - my WN8: 1701

Your Winrate: 55.32% - your WN8: 1565

 

So according to your vague statement you would be a player with "good winrate" and "bad WN8" as I would expect your WN8 to be higher than mine as your winrate is much better

than mine.



Troubledove #19 Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:09 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 45589 battles
  • 2,386
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    09-07-2011

View PostFeuerSturm91, on 22 February 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

 

Just for the sake of clarity, please elaborate on "good winrate" and "bad WN8", because without some numbers you could say that we already have an example here:

My Winrate: 52.13% - my WN8: 1701

Your Winrate: 55.32% - your WN8: 1565

 

So according to your vague statement you would be a player with "good winrate" and "bad WN8" as I would expect your WN8 to be higher than mine as your winrate is much better

than mine.

 

We can lean to verbals given by wotlabs.net. Your WR = Good, your WN8 = Very Good. My WR = Very good, my WN8 = Good. So there is only +-1 deviation in category concerning WR/WN8 in our case, falls under normal distribution. Finding 2 category deviation will be a lot harder - and I suspect there is not single case of 3 category deviation.

 

There is error margin in WN8 for sure, but it won't be very wide.



Lord_Demon #20 Posted 22 February 2015 - 11:10 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 32892 battles
  • 3,643
  • Member since:
    06-01-2011

View PostTroubledove, on 22 February 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

You want to debunk the WN8?

 

Then find me player with good winrate and bad WN8. Show me someone who contributes to team wins but does not get credited from it in these measures.

 

Stage is yours.

 

 

 

Get a bad player who often platoons with 2 unicums (because they are RL friends or something), and you would get that. The bad player still plays bad and dies doing nothing, giving him bad WN8, unicums carry many of his games giving him good WR.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users