Jump to content


How player skill affects the WR?

statistics work numbers WR skill

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

TungstenHitman #81 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:15 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18344 battles
  • 3,295
  • [TKSV] TKSV
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostExcavatus, on 21 April 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

 

Ok, I am on the side of the skill.. skill is the main factor for a good WR, this is what I think..

May be you start from the wrong side :)

 

Sure, I started this game and I was shite, but noob shite, now I'm slightly less shite.. experienced shite.. maybe if my crappc didn't catch fire mid-battles I might be marginally less shite.. but this is splitting hairs :teethhappy:

jabster #82 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12510 battles
  • 21,207
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostTungstenHitman, on 21 April 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

Now again in readable and logical English if you will...

 

So exactly what did you comment add then?



TungstenHitman #83 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:21 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18344 battles
  • 3,295
  • [TKSV] TKSV
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016
O.. I'll my 2 cents though.. if you're playing tier10 you will obviously enjoy the benefits of being top tier and for me.. in a stronk tank like say a T29, when I'm top tier.. I have an absolute field day stomping lower tiers! However if you don't play top tier then your win rate very much does get influenced heavily by what tier you get in.. for example that same T29 I would stomp a KV1 with and win more often as top tier.. will get wrecked vs tier9 stronk tank.. no matter how good I try it would want to be an absolute garbage turd of a player to throw away that performance advantage.. which does happen but.. you get the point

Edited by TungstenHitman, 21 April 2017 - 03:21 PM.


jabster #84 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12510 battles
  • 21,207
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostTungstenHitman, on 21 April 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

O.. I'll my 2 cents though.. if you're playing tier10 you will obviously enjoy the benefits of being top tier and for me.. in a stronk tank like say a T29, when I'm top tier.. I have an absolute field day stomping lower tiers! However if you don't play top tier then your win rate very much does get influenced heavily by what tier you get in.. for example that same T29 I would stomp a KV1 with and win more often as top tier.. will get wrecked vs tier9 stronk tank.. no matter how good I try it would want to be an absolute garbage turd of a player to throw away that performance advantage.. which does happen but.. you get the point

 

The only point you seem to be making is that you're an average player but just don't realise it.

TungstenHitman #85 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:28 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18344 battles
  • 3,295
  • [TKSV] TKSV
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postjabster, on 21 April 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

 

The only point you seem to be making is that you're an average player but just don't realise it.

 

I actually referred to myself as an experienced shite player if you can read? not sure if you can though... anyway.. isn't always those who can least afford to point the finger eh?

 

http://wotlabs.net/eu/player/jabster

 

As you can clearly see there is a direct link between playing shite and having shite stats.. is this enough of an experimental result that can be acknowledged? or is it just a load of sprouts?



Long_Range_Sniper #86 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 28843 battles
  • 7,266
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 21 April 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

 

So what you're saying is even not playing I'm still better than everyone and increasingly so :P:teethhappy:

 

Not at emoticon use I'm afraid.

jabster #87 Posted 21 April 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12510 battles
  • 21,207
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostTungstenHitman, on 21 April 2017 - 02:28 PM, said:

 

I actually referred to myself as an experienced shite player if you can read? not sure if you can though... anyway.. isn't always those who can least afford to point the finger eh?

 

http://wotlabs.net/eu/player/jabster

 

As you can clearly see there is a direct link between playing shite and having shite stats.. is this enough of an experimental result that can be acknowledged? or is it just a load of sprouts?

 

I'm not the one who keeps implying that it's my team that let's me down am I?

Edited by jabster, 21 April 2017 - 04:02 PM.


jabster #88 Posted 21 April 2017 - 04:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12510 battles
  • 21,207
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostExcavatus, on 21 April 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

on the other hand

If you can show me any experimental results or statistical data trying to find the relation between the skill and WR

I will apologize..

But AFAIK there is none..

There is only people, talking from their arses, and from their 1 night game play experience..

You may think that is a done deal and talking about is just foolish, and everyone doesnt think like that may be a fool..

Then I suggest you leave the fools alone.. you dont need to argue with fools over screens.

The have been a few threads using the same method but I'm buggered if I can find them!



clixor #89 Posted 21 April 2017 - 05:22 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 49415 battles
  • 2,904
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 21 April 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

O.. I'll my 2 cents though.. if you're playing tier10 you will obviously enjoy the benefits of being top tier and for me.. in a stronk tank like say a T29, when I'm top tier.. I have an absolute field day stomping lower tiers! However if you don't play top tier then your win rate very much does get influenced heavily by what tier you get in.. for example that same T29 I would stomp a KV1 with and win more often as top tier.. will get wrecked vs tier9 stronk tank.. no matter how good I try it would want to be an absolute garbage turd of a player to throw away that performance advantage.. which does happen but.. you get the point

 

I'll double your 2 cents :)

 

Even if you are bottom-tier, you are still hp the enemy has to deal with. So, let's say you die without doing damage, but you take shots instead of a tier9 heavy on your team, who then lives longer which increases the odds he will do something useful. Opposed to you camping and dying isolated this is a way to influence (ableit slightly) a certain situation

 

Then scenario 2: in your t29 you go hulldown and bounce a few shots, then the enemy has (again) to deal with your hp. The result is you influence a situation even more and gives your team some space to adjust.

 

And that's all even without considering any possible dmg you can do. This is also exactly why it's so a moronic thing to do to be in a spot on the map where your team can't take advantage of it (unless you are optimistic about your chances of dealing with stuff).

 

And on the oppossed side, if you have a noob tier10 on your side, it's still hp they have to cut through (sorry to repeat this). Then you asses the situation (looking at clan names or xvm) and guestimate how many shells/time this is going to take and how aggressive they are going to be (good players are likely to pen more and recognize an advantage position). If you happen to be on another flank then you know how aggresive YOU have to be.

 

Obviously this is not an exact science and everybody fails, but think of it like this, if you can influence a situation 1/100 of a time more than you do now, your wr goes up by 1%.



TungstenHitman #90 Posted 21 April 2017 - 06:14 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 18344 battles
  • 3,295
  • [TKSV] TKSV
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postclixor, on 21 April 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

 

I'll double your 2 cents :)

 

Even if you are bottom-tier, you are still hp the enemy has to deal with. So, let's say you die without doing damage, but you take shots instead of a tier9 heavy on your team, who then lives longer which increases the odds he will do something useful. Opposed to you camping and dying isolated this is a way to influence (ableit slightly) a certain situation

 

Then scenario 2: in your t29 you go hulldown and bounce a few shots, then the enemy has (again) to deal with your hp. The result is you influence a situation even more and gives your team some space to adjust.

 

And that's all even without considering any possible dmg you can do. This is also exactly why it's so a moronic thing to do to be in a spot on the map where your team can't take advantage of it (unless you are optimistic about your chances of dealing with stuff).

 

And on the oppossed side, if you have a noob tier10 on your side, it's still hp they have to cut through (sorry to repeat this). Then you asses the situation (looking at clan names or xvm) and guestimate how many shells/time this is going to take and how aggressive they are going to be (good players are likely to pen more and recognize an advantage position). If you happen to be on another flank then you know how aggresive YOU have to be.

 

Obviously this is not an exact science and everybody fails, but think of it like this, if you can influence a situation 1/100 of a time more than you do now, your wr goes up by 1%.

 

True.. tbh I'm done delving into the workings and scenarios of what is after all, an arcade style game where 30 player randomly get put together etc.. it's a game after all, supposed to be fun and I haven't played for a while so I'm going to now. I'm not going to concern myself about stats and such.. and if it starts to get on my tits I'll go watch TV or have a beer or something.. why should we really care how it plays out tbh we aren't losing money or something?



Ullakkomorko #91 Posted 24 April 2017 - 08:47 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11658 battles
  • 359
  • [HKI] HKI
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

Coming back to the numbers from tits now (which does sound kind of hard doesn't it).

 

I think the 100 skill (or even 110) given as an average to our player is too high. The 100 skill player would constantly be able to play at the highest theoretical skill level and I think that's an assumption that's hard to defend. Everybody has bad days (or lapses between Fort Knoxs;). This would mean that the average high skill should be something close to 90 or 95. Perhaps skill should be interpreted as taking into account tanks as well. Only playing non-stock OP tanks would take the great player into the 100 level.

 

But those platoon statistics are really interesting. I wouldn't have thought that the effect on the grey area would be so big from the whole platoon's point of view. This makes me want to try playing with a two man unicum + myself platoon. Shame my friends who play WoT aren't quite at unicum levels.



qpranger #92 Posted 24 April 2017 - 08:57 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30119 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
git gud scrubs

jabster #93 Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:04 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12510 battles
  • 21,207
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostUllakkomorko, on 24 April 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

Coming back to the numbers from tits now (which does sound kind of hard doesn't it).

 

I think the 100 skill (or even 110) given as an average to our player is too high. The 100 skill player would constantly be able to play at the highest theoretical skill level and I think that's an assumption that's hard to defend. Everybody has bad days (or lapses between Fort Knoxs;). This would mean that the average high skill should be something close to 90 or 95. Perhaps skill should be interpreted as taking into account tanks as well. Only playing non-stock OP tanks would take the great player into the 100 level.

 

As said before that's not what the number represents. A value of 100 means a player contributes, on average, twice as much to the outcome of a battle than does an average player and is not some upper limit of skill.



pecopad #94 Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:30 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21007 battles
  • 667
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

If you look at the stats you can see that you have different WR % depending on the tank...

 

On the IS you have + 1600 WN8 and 47% WR, and on the KV2 +1500 WN8 and 54% WR.

 

Actually the IS and KV2 have different Wr% according to VBA (49% the IS and 51,5% the Kv2)

 

So in this small example you can see that the player (you) has very litle impact on WR...

 



Excavatus #95 Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:28 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18834 battles
  • 1,629
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

View PostUllakkomorko, on 24 April 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

Coming back to the numbers from tits now (which does sound kind of hard doesn't it).

 

I think the 100 skill (or even 110) given as an average to our player is too high. The 100 skill player would constantly be able to play at the highest theoretical skill level and I think that's an assumption that's hard to defend. Everybody has bad days (or lapses between Fort Knoxs;). This would mean that the average high skill should be something close to 90 or 95. Perhaps skill should be interpreted as taking into account tanks as well. Only playing non-stock OP tanks would take the great player into the 100 level.

 

But those platoon statistics are really interesting. I wouldn't have thought that the effect on the grey area would be so big from the whole platoon's point of view. This makes me want to try playing with a two man unicum + myself platoon. Shame my friends who play WoT aren't quite at unicum levels.

 

You are right, but that is the point of an experiment. To see results on theoretical level. Real world is not the same exactly. It started with the assumption, that a player constantly plays his/her top level in every game in every tank. Whether he/she is a 50 or 100 skill level player.

 

on the other hand, the grey zone changes with the toons, amazed me too. I didnt expect such drastic affect on the outcome. I've always thought and known that tooning helps you but this much?

 

 

View Postqpranger, on 24 April 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

git gud scrubs

 

We are trying noob!

 

View Postpecopad, on 24 April 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

If you look at the stats you can see that you have different WR % depending on the tank...

 

On the IS you have + 1600 WN8 and 47% WR, and on the KV2 +1500 WN8 and 54% WR.

 

Actually the IS and KV2 have different Wr% according to VBA (49% the IS and 51,5% the Kv2)

 

So in this small example you can see that the player (you) has very litle impact on WR...

 

 

First of all, I dont believe WN8 is a good measurement of the skill.

The thing is, it looks actually small that the player affects the outcome. in the end only %23 of the battles you can affect while you play solo.
That is the result of the experiment you can clearly see.

and IS and KV2 has different tiers, different play styles. I always think my best tier is tier 6, you can see mostly on my tier 6 meds.

That means with IS, I am an 60 skill player while in KV2 I am an 70 skill player (numbers are made up)

Because while playing with FCM, I have a %45 WR while in bishop I have %60...

You cant say that I have no affect on the outcome.

You can only say that, I suck at playing FCM and I am a dirty clickler.
 



Mike_Mckay #96 Posted 12 December 2017 - 08:32 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 15705 battles
  • 949
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    09-02-2015

View PostExcavatus, on 19 April 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

 

 

Clearly as you can see people still think that the battles decided from the start, and skill doesnt contribute at all..

Yes all my efforts ay be futile to put some sense and proof into the sensless and idiotic minds..

But you can say I simply love to play with numbers and dont have something to do today...

 

On the other hand, for the answer of the skill distribution,

I didnt put individual players skills into account. I didnt put them in writing.

I only put down the sum.. so I cant say anything about the variance of that..

But may be If I have enough time, I can do more detailed work towards that point..

 

 

Eh?


Its the disparate skill levels that decide the outcome from the start. Where has anyone said skill isn't a factor?

In fact I struggle to see how people saying that disparate SKILL levels dictate the outcome somehow magically in your version of reality morphs into skill NOT being a factor exactly, its like theres a bunch of you that have a scripted set of soundbites you type irrespective of what is contained in the post you are replying to as you seem to ignore practically everything said and just repost the same old mantras

_Anarchistic_ #97 Posted 12 December 2017 - 02:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34256 battles
  • 997
  • [SKIL3] SKIL3
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015

just curious with this analogy

 

some players are 40%wr, they = pawns

Shishx is really quite good = Queen

I am in middle, say a Knight

 

how many pawns does it take to beat a knight or a queen? and how often would they win?



Excavatus #98 Posted 12 December 2017 - 02:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18834 battles
  • 1,629
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

View Post_Anarchistic_, on 12 December 2017 - 04:21 PM, said:

just curious with this analogy

 

some players are 40%wr, they = pawns

Shishx is really quite good = Queen

I am in middle, say a Knight

 

how many pawns does it take to beat a knight or a queen? and how often would they win?

 

IF we are looking with the analogy I used in this thread, and accept that the Shinks is 100 and you are 75 skill level players,

on a head on match 3v1 for shinks and 2v1 is a death sentence for you..

 

But I believe that would not be true, because when you get into individual scenarios, it would have much more variables and the skill would be much more important.

I believe shunks can take on 3v1 to tomatoes easily.. may be even 1v4... and you 1v2 or even 1v3 easily..

 

These are my personal opinion..



A_Knight_Who_Says_Ni #99 Posted 12 December 2017 - 02:59 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 1177 battles
  • 165
  • Member since:
    12-22-2014

View Post_Anarchistic_, on 12 December 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

just curious with this analogy

 

some players are 40%wr, they = pawns

Shishx is really quite good = Queen

I am in middle, say a Knight

 

how many pawns does it take to beat a knight or a queen? and how often would they win?

 

View PostExcavatus, on 12 December 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

 

IF we are looking with the analogy I used in this thread, and accept that the Shinks is 100 and you are 75 skill level players,

on a head on match 3v1 for shinks and 2v1 is a death sentence for you..

 

But I believe that would not be true, because when you get into individual scenarios, it would have much more variables and the skill would be much more important.

I believe shunks can take on 3v1 to tomatoes easily.. may be even 1v4... and you 1v2 or even 1v3 easily..

 

These are my personal opinion..

 

:girl:

 

shinx would probably like your comments but he's banned for 365 days on the forums.

 

F


Edited by A_Knight_Who_Says_Ni, 12 December 2017 - 03:01 PM.


jabster #100 Posted 12 December 2017 - 03:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12510 battles
  • 21,207
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostA_Knight_Who_Says_Ni, on 12 December 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

 

:girl:

 

shinx would probably like your comments but he's banned for 365 days on the forums.

 

F

 

What on earth did you do to get that ban?





Also tagged with statistics, work, numbers, WR, skill

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users