Jump to content


Marks question, is this possible?


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

anonym_YNch2j0j5oJ9 #1 Posted 29 September 2017 - 08:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 689
  • Member since:
    09-24-2018

So i saw a pretty bad player with 41% winrate on his account and like 170 battles in his tier 9 conqueror, his marks was 27%, 357 dmg per game and 258 assist per game. So then i started wondering.. if this is 27% marks.. are there people with even less % marks? Lets say.. 12%, 8%, or even 1%?

Or are these players with for example 8% marks, only that low because they don't have a lot of battles in a specific tank yet? Cuz honestly i don't think anyone can possible do worse than 357 dmg per game in a tier 9 heavy after almost 200 battles in it.. pretty safe to say that this is a "bot". Or are the 27% below this dude also all bots or what? Or are the 27% below him just below him because their battle total in the Conq is less?



Homer_J #2 Posted 30 September 2017 - 04:23 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

Has the Conqueror been in the game longer than MoE? Answer- Yes.

 

I've got no rating for mine at all, which I presume is because I have not played it since MoE were introduced.  Does that make me at 0%?

 

And when I check my IS-7 which I've definitely had since before MoE and have played somewhat recently but not very often, it shows me at a whopping 8.88%

 

IS-3 I'm at 8.31%

 

Us old timers are probably messing the figures up.


Edited by Homer_J, 30 September 2017 - 05:06 AM.


anonym_YNch2j0j5oJ9 #3 Posted 30 September 2017 - 10:21 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 689
  • Member since:
    09-24-2018

View PostHomer_J, on 30 September 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:

Has the Conqueror been in the game longer than MoE? Answer- Yes.

 

I've got no rating for mine at all, which I presume is because I have not played it since MoE were introduced.  Does that make me at 0%?

 

And when I check my IS-7 which I've definitely had since before MoE and have played somewhat recently but not very often, it shows me at a whopping 8.88%

 

IS-3 I'm at 8.31%

 

Us old timers are probably messing the figures up.

 

So people with low %marks is because they don't have enough battles on a tank yet? Or are there just many 0 dpg players?

UrQuan #4 Posted 30 September 2017 - 10:30 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20104 battles
  • 6,522
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostPress2ForSkill, on 30 September 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

 

So people with low %marks is because they don't have enough battles on a tank yet? Or are there just many 0 dpg players?

 

Think it's worse then that. People with low battlecount at least got the excuse of too low battlecount for valid MoE% & still getting used to the tank. Not to mention for people who had their tanks before MoE introduction. But you'll find people who got 100+ battles in tanks with very low MoE% still, simply because they play that bad.

There are accounts played by people that score in the 30% WR. You don't achieve that without being mindbogglingly bad at the game. No they're not bots, they're actual people that play. So nope, not gonna guess at how low it can go, because I'm afraid of the answer being *But UrQuan, this player has xxx battles in tank with even lower MoE%!*

 

Btw, you haven't started scraping the bottom of the (player)barrel yet. 357 damage in a T9 means he at least does about 2 damaging shots in 3 games or roughly about that. There's players that don't even manage a damaging shot in 10 games... 


Edited by UrQuan, 30 September 2017 - 10:34 AM.


anonym_YNch2j0j5oJ9 #5 Posted 30 September 2017 - 12:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 689
  • Member since:
    09-24-2018

View PostUrQuan, on 30 September 2017 - 11:30 AM, said:

 

Think it's worse then that. People with low battlecount at least got the excuse of too low battlecount for valid MoE% & still getting used to the tank. Not to mention for people who had their tanks before MoE introduction. But you'll find people who got 100+ battles in tanks with very low MoE% still, simply because they play that bad.

There are accounts played by people that score in the 30% WR. You don't achieve that without being mindbogglingly bad at the game. No they're not bots, they're actual people that play. So nope, not gonna guess at how low it can go, because I'm afraid of the answer being *But UrQuan, this player has xxx battles in tank with even lower MoE%!*

 

Btw, you haven't started scraping the bottom of the (player)barrel yet. 357 damage in a T9 means he at least does about 2 damaging shots in 3 games or roughly about that. There's players that don't even manage a damaging shot in 10 games... 

 

if it is actual humans and not bots, then my hope for this world just died. again.

My friend got 1st mark on his bc12t after like 16 battles.. great player but still



Rati_Festa #6 Posted 30 September 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 44393 battles
  • 1,640
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

Some tanks attract yolo bad player yhe bc12t is one of them imo. Very rarely see them doing anything constructive. 

 

I have 2 moe in my kanj panzer and it was very easy to get. I assume this is due to all the poor souls who thought they were getting a chubby e25 and had no clue at all how to play  what they got. ( a turretless rhm with a third of the alpha )



Baldrickk #7 Posted 30 September 2017 - 03:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 30521 battles
  • 14,682
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
Don't forget that the 27% doesn't mean "better than 27% of players" but 27% rating scaled to the best players at 100%

Even an AFK can get assist and be ranked higher than 0.

Homer_J #8 Posted 30 September 2017 - 06:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29705 battles
  • 31,448
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostPress2ForSkill, on 30 September 2017 - 10:21 AM, said:

 

So people with low %marks is because they don't have enough battles on a tank yet? Or are there just many 0 dpg players?

 

I dunno, I was mainly pointing out that I have plenty of battles and not terrible damage on my IS-7 but am at less than 10% because of the way WG implemented MoE.



CaptainThunderWalker #9 Posted 30 September 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18937 battles
  • 1,297
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

View PostPress2ForSkill, on 30 September 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

 

if it is actual humans and not bots, then my hope for this world just died. again.

My friend got 1st mark on his bc12t after like 16 battles.. great player but still

 

Bots get about 43-46% WR, depending on your bot program. I'm sure it's possible to make bots that get 60% WR if you can code a decent WoT AI, probably more.

 

In regards to your faith in humanity, listen to music. It helps for me. Well, it doesn't give me any more faith in humanity, but it makes me feel better.



Balc0ra #10 Posted 30 September 2017 - 09:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67385 battles
  • 17,103
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Even crappy player in a HT will get some assist, even if he does zero damage to get the % up a little. As you need less average to get 20%, vs how much you need to get past 90% pr game.

 

 

Then again, we don't know 100% how MOE's work... as there is this little incident.

Spoiler

 


Edited by Balc0ra, 30 September 2017 - 09:29 PM.


ZlatanArKung #11 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:21 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,132
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostPress2ForSkill, on 29 September 2017 - 08:56 PM, said:

So i saw a pretty bad player with 41% winrate on his account and like 170 battles in his tier 9 conqueror, his marks was 27%, 357 dmg per game and 258 assist per game. So then i started wondering.. if this is 27% marks.. are there people with even less % marks? Lets say.. 12%, 8%, or even 1%?

Or are these players with for example 8% marks, only that low because they don't have a lot of battles in a specific tank yet? Cuz honestly i don't think anyone can possible do worse than 357 dmg per game in a tier 9 heavy after almost 200 battles in it.. pretty safe to say that this is a "bot". Or are the 27% below this dude also all bots or what? Or are the 27% below him just below him because their battle total in the Conq is less?

 

Marks of Excellence are NOT about how you do better than xx% of players in that tank.

 

The percentage tell you how close you are to the top scorer in that tank for the last 14 days.

 

He scores 27% of the damage the top guy in that tank does.



anonym_YNch2j0j5oJ9 #12 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:27 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 689
  • Member since:
    09-24-2018

View PostBalc0ra, on 30 September 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

Even crappy player in a HT will get some assist, even if he does zero damage to get the % up a little. As you need less average to get 20%, vs how much you need to get past 90% pr game.

 

 

Then again, we don't know 100% how MOE's work... as there is this little incident.

Spoiler

 

 

Pretty sure circon didn't play the hellcat for an extremely long time, and the requirements then dropped a lot, so his battle then updated his past 100 battles again and he 3 marked it.

View PostZlatanArKung, on 01 October 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

 

Marks of Excellence are NOT about how you do better than xx% of players in that tank.

 

The percentage tell you how close you are to the top scorer in that tank for the last 14 days.

 

He scores 27% of the damage the top guy in that tank does.

 

Well.. that's not how i understand it tbh.

for example for my  T54 marks it says these exact words:
"Current ratio is higher than the ratio of 90.49% players who fought in this vehicle for the past 14 days"

 

and 350 dmg + 250 assist is 27%  of the best guy's? So 350+250 = 600, and lets say 600x4 = 2400 total, no way that is 3 marks for a tier 9 heavy dude, probably 2 marks but not 3..



ZlatanArKung #13 Posted 01 October 2017 - 08:51 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,132
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostPress2ForSkill, on 01 October 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

 

Pretty sure circon didn't play the hellcat for an extremely long time, and the requirements then dropped a lot, so his battle then updated his past 100 battles again and he 3 marked it.

 

Well.. that's not how i understand it tbh.

for example for my  T54 marks it says these exact words:
"Current ratio is higher than the ratio of 90.49% players who fought in this vehicle for the past 14 days"

 

and 350 dmg + 250 assist is 27%  of the best guy's? So 350+250 = 600, and lets say 600x4 = 2400 total, no way that is 3 marks for a tier 9 heavy dude, probably 2 marks but not 3..

 

It is using a moving value. Not average, recent battles are weighted more then older battles. Battles more then 100 ago in the tank doesn't count at all.

 

If he had a good recent battle where he scored 2000 damage (for him), he would have raised his MoE by a few percentages.

 

If it worked with a 'better then xx%' there would be guys who after 100 battles have single digit MoE in a tank. But these doesn't simply exist. You can pick the most red of tomatoes and find his worst performing tank. He will still have like 15% MoE as long as he has ~80-100+ games in it.

 

There is a lengthy post on this forum where MoE is explained. Check it out.



TankkiPoju #14 Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:37 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21002 battles
  • 6,442
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

MoE ratings are just percentage values from goals set by WG.

 

For example if a tank has 1000 damage+spotting set as 100% MoE, a person who does 100 damage+spotting per game has 10% MoE.

 

View PostPress2ForSkill, on 01 October 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Well.. that's not how i understand it tbh.

for example for my  T54 marks it says these exact words:
"Current ratio is higher than the ratio of 90.49% players who fought in this vehicle for the past 14 days"

 

It means you are at 90.49% from the 100% MoE goal set by WG, which are just some numbers they crunched up. There aren't in reality 9.5% of T-54 players that are better than you.
 

_snowfIake__ #15 Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27164 battles
  • 644
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012
Why don't you people actually read the description of MoE really is instead of speculating?

anonym_YNch2j0j5oJ9 #16 Posted 01 October 2017 - 10:14 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 689
  • Member since:
    09-24-2018

View PostTankkiPoju, on 01 October 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

 

It means you are at 90.49% from the 100% MoE goal set by WG, which are just some numbers they crunched up. There aren't in reality 9.5% of T-54 players that are better than you.

 

impossible. As i said earlier, 2400 dmg total is definitely not the best player in a tier 9 heavy.....

BP_OMowe #17 Posted 01 October 2017 - 09:00 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24764 battles
  • 2,047
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View PostZlatanArKung, on 01 October 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

It is using a moving value. Not average, recent battles are weighted more then older battles. Battles more then 100 ago in the tank doesn't count at all.

There is a lengthy post on this forum where MoE is explained. Check it out.

 

Got a link or a name for that thread?

ZlatanArKung #18 Posted 01 October 2017 - 10:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,132
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBP_OMowe, on 01 October 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

 

Got a link or a name for that thread?

Something like 'MoE explained' or 'mark of excellence explained' or similar.

Author is LordMuffin.

 

Everything found on WG website is in the thread, aswell as lengthy customer support dialogue about how it works etc.

 

View PostRenamedUser_504592051, on 01 October 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

Why don't you people actually read the description of MoE really is instead of speculating?

The description isn't accurate.


 

_snowfIake__ #19 Posted 01 October 2017 - 10:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27164 battles
  • 644
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostZlatanArKung, on 01 October 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

The description isn't accurate.

 

Pretty sure it used to be a good description, looks like they messed it up at some point.

 

The way I understand it:

 

Your damage and assisted damage with that tank for the last 100 battles has to be higher than the average by other players for the last 14 days by 65%, 85% or 95%. Your starts are updated every battle (that's why it's important to have a streak of 100 battles with no bad battles) not sure when is the overall average for that tank is updated, maybe daily or maybe after every battle too.


Edited by RenamedUser_504592051, 01 October 2017 - 10:20 PM.


Mr_Deo #20 Posted 02 October 2017 - 01:10 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42061 battles
  • 1,766
  • [ESAF] ESAF
  • Member since:
    01-30-2012

View PostBalc0ra, on 30 September 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

Even crappy player in a HT will get some assist, even if he does zero damage to get the % up a little. As you need less average to get 20%, vs how much you need to get past 90% pr game.

 

 

Then again, we don't know 100% how MOE's work... as there is this little incident.

Spoiler

 

 

Well, WG has stated that it is bugged, but remember that it is based on other players too, so if other players had the overall go down and that was his first day of the game then he goes up in % (but down in average) just because.

It is also possible that some idiot at WG put placeholder values in during a patch, and his average jumped to 100% because the holder value was set wayyyy too low.

 

http://forum.worldof...-is-calculated/ does seem to be generally accepted.

The OP replied in that thread so he should know how it works.

By 170 battles the numbers are not going to go up or down unless your play style changes.  Somewhere around 30 battles your only getting a 2.5% damage increase if you maintain your average, so I dare say once you have a elite crew/top mods then 30 battles should put you around where you normally sit.  What I find odd is that my Conq is at 26%, with 49 battles, 1078+352... I should be well above the guy he listed unless my last 20 was really bad and his last 20 was really good.

 

 

 

View PostRenamedUser_504592051, on 01 October 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

 

Pretty sure it used to be a good description, looks like they messed it up at some point.

 

The way I understand it:

 

Your damage and assisted damage with that tank for the last 100 battles has to be higher than the average by other players for the last 14 days by 65%, 85% or 95%. Your starts are updated every battle (that's why it's important to have a streak of 100 battles with no bad battles) not sure when is the overall average for that tank is updated, maybe daily or maybe after every battle too.

 

You don't understand it then.

They only keep 1 value for your MOE, and some time during the week every players value will be taken to make a list.

Keeping 100 values for every tank on every player is a lot of extra database entries that they don't want.

Average = (OldAverage*Gameplayed)+ThisGame

Gamesplayed=Gamesplayed+1

For MOE it is uses EMA, perhaps not exactly but it does seem to fit.  The line as WG describes it "for last 100 battles"  doesn't fit at all.

 


Edited by Mr_Deo, 02 October 2017 - 01:22 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users