Jump to content


Why so many low WRs compared to high WRs?


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

RandomBlank #1 Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10346 battles
  • 703
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

One thing about WOT puzzles me:

 

The average WR across all players should be around 49% - accounting for the 1% or so of Draws. For each 15 players losing, there's 15 players winning. For every player with 45% WR there should be one with 55% WR. Or at least for 2 players with 45% there should be one with 60%.

 

And yet, what I observe every day over and over is teams comprising of 5-7 players with 45% or less, another 5-7 with 45-50%, and maybe 2-3 above 50%. There should be about the same amount of greens as oranges, or blues as reds. But this is not the case. Vast majority is below 50% and these with 60+% are way more scarce than these with 40-%. You frequently see teams where everyone is yellow or worse, but never only yellow or better.

 

Let me ask: WTF? What quirk of game mechanics or calculations or statistics or whatever is responsible for this discrepancy?



Echotun #2 Posted 03 October 2017 - 01:59 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20021 battles
  • 413
  • [FA-1] FA-1
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015
This changes at higher tiers

vasilinhorulezz #3 Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22813 battles
  • 1,109
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

Nope, statistics don't take account a lot of things, 

- how many good and bad players exists

- how many games every single one of them play daily

- how strong are the tanks get played

and I'm too tired to continue

 

Statistics is a metric of estimation, not facts.

Also this applies to pretty much all online competitive games.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this has been answered in previous threads already.



magkiln #4 Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24179 battles
  • 751
  • [EKKE] EKKE
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015
What you're probably seeing is a team of mostly typical low tier players and a handful of exceptions. The latter are experienced players that are either sealclubbing, earning money in a premium tank, or working their way up a new techtree.

brumbarr #5 Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:09 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

Thats because of a couple of reason, first off , the lowest WR is much less far away than the highest WR from the avg. So a lot of 45% players will constitute to 1 65% player.  There are more bad players needed to compensate 1 good player.

 

Also, the WR doesnt show how many games they play per day or at what tier, so some tiers might have more bad players playing, or bad players might play more then good players.



RandomBlank #6 Posted 03 October 2017 - 02:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10346 battles
  • 703
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostEchotun, on 03 October 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

This changes at higher tiers

 

These legendary tiers above 10th? Because I definitely see this on tier X games.



Lord_Edge #7 Posted 03 October 2017 - 04:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5987 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostRandomBlank, on 03 October 2017 - 01:55 PM, said:

Let me ask: WTF? What quirk of game mechanics or calculations or statistics or whatever is responsible for this discrepancy?

 

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense, luck has a huge impact on player stats.  To explain it simply, it's not a black and white case of "for every game where you get a good team there will be a game where you get a bad team" there are numerous variable of random probability that go into every matchup.  For instance:

 

You may or may not be on a team of good players.

You may or may not be against a team of good players.

Your team's players may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your opponants may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your team may or may not play well as a team.

Your opponents may or may not play well as a team.

 

Then there's all sorts of wildcards such as a player lagging and losing a trade they shouldn't have, the pure RNG of shots (a tomatos snapshot going through somebodys ammo rack, a unicums fully aimed shot missing the target completely, etc).

 

To put it in perspective two equally skilled players can have winrates 5% apart or more purely because one of them has had the luck to get games that on average were easier to win.



Coldspell #8 Posted 03 October 2017 - 04:54 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19340 battles
  • 2,123
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
Draws. A draw essentially lowers your winrate so for statistical purposes it works as if both teams lost.

brumbarr #9 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:05 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,326
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

 

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense, luck has a huge impact on player stats.  To explain it simply, it's not a black and white case of "for every game where you get a good team there will be a game where you get a bad team" there are numerous variable of random probability that go into every matchup.  For instance:

 

You may or may not be on a team of good players.

You may or may not be against a team of good players.

Your team's players may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your opponants may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your team may or may not play well as a team.

Your opponents may or may not play well as a team.

 

Then there's all sorts of wildcards such as a player lagging and losing a trade they shouldn't have, the pure RNG of shots (a tomatos snapshot going through somebodys ammo rack, a unicums fully aimed shot missing the target completely, etc).

 

To put it in perspective two equally skilled players can have winrates 5% apart or more purely because one of them has had the luck to get games that on average were easier to win.

 

euhm, no.  thats not how statistics work. 

First consider this: any player has an 50/50 chance to be placed on the 2 opposing teams. There is a 50% chance you got picked for this team but you might have well have been in the enemy team with a 50% chance.

 

Then we can calculate the standard deviation (*2):

For 1K games: 3.2%

for 10k games: 1%

for 30k games: 0,6%.

 

This means that there is a  95% certaintity that 2 players with the same skill are max that difference appart at those amount of games played.

 

So a 10K 50% players is 95% likely to be a worse player than a 51% WR player.

 

And all this is completely irrelevant anyway to the OPs question, which is why the sum of all WRs doesnt seem to be 49%.

 



BravelyRanAway #10 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:10 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 22556 battles
  • 9,321
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    12-29-2010

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

To put it in perspective two equally skilled players can have winrates 5% apart or more purely because one of them has had the luck to get games that on average were easier to win.

95% of statistics are made up.



Mimos_A #11 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24072 battles
  • 1,990
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

 

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense, luck has a huge impact on player stats.  To explain it simply, it's not a black and white case of "for every game where you get a good team there will be a game where you get a bad team" there are numerous variable of random probability that go into every matchup.  For instance:

 

You may or may not be on a team of good players.

You may or may not be against a team of good players.

Your team's players may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your opponants may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your team may or may not play well as a team.

Your opponents may or may not play well as a team.

 

Then there's all sorts of wildcards such as a player lagging and losing a trade they shouldn't have, the pure RNG of shots (a tomatos snapshot going through somebodys ammo rack, a unicums fully aimed shot missing the target completely, etc).

 

To put it in perspective two equally skilled players can have winrates 5% apart or more purely because one of them has had the luck to get games that on average were easier to win.

 

It is a black and white thing. A bad player makes more mistakes and makes more bad choices. The "luck" you create yourself by being consistent. Sure, you might still encounter some runs of bad luck, which might drag you down a little bit, just as a another player might encounter a run of good luck dragging him up a bit. In general, if you make the right decisions consistently, you will win more, if you don't, you lose more. Simply because by consistently doing well, you create a bigger chance for your team to win. Basically your winrate depends on 15 players doing better than 15 other players, the "luck" factor can be made smaller by doing well as you consistently compensate for someone else not doing well, which means you need less other players to do well on your team to still win.

 

That 5% will only exist in very small sample sizes, the bigger the sample size, the smaller the disparity will be. Apart from that, skill is not only doing damage or doing things that are visible in stats, it's also doing those things at the right moment, they might seem equally skilled on the surface, but one of them might be a lot better at reading the game than the other.


Edited by Mimos_A, 03 October 2017 - 05:19 PM.


xtrem3x #12 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32216 battles
  • 1,458
  • [EFE-X] EFE-X
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense,

 

Stopped reading there.

 

If player with 25,000 battles (for example) win 1 extra game per 100 battles than someone else with 25,000 battles. They will have 1% better win rate.

All things being equal (which over many many battles they are) that 1 extra win is likely to be down to the player carrying when the other didn't.

 

Now I don't know about you, but I have found myself carrying the game quite often, certainly more than once every 100 games. But not as often as I imagine people with 60%+ WR do.

All in all, it does boil down to skill. Someone with below 50% win rate are not carrying when they could. Just like someone with 55% WR is not carrying when someone with 60% WR would.



Jigabachi #13 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:24 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,020
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense, 

No, not really. If you really think that's the case, you should really considering going back to school.

If you take two players, similar amount of matches played, no padding, no walletwarriors, who play singlerandoms only, one with 47%WR, the other one with 52%WR, the player with the higher WR is a much better player. That's how simple math and logic works.

There are a few exotic exceptions, but those don't matter.

 

 

@ topic: There are many reasons why there are so many horribly bad players.

1. It's a f2p game with very low system requirements and it gets advertised everywhere, so you have lots of pondlife and kids playing the game.

2. The devs suck at explaining the game and guiding the player. No need to learn, you can just fail up the tiers or buy hightier premtanks.

3. Lots of other reasons that are more complicated.



Sirebellus #14 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:37 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19084 battles
  • 544
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

 

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense, luck has a huge impact on player stats.  To explain it simply, it's not a black and white case of "for every game where you get a good team there will be a game where you get a bad team" there are numerous variable of random probability that go into every matchup.  For instance:

 

You may or may not be on a team of good players.

You may or may not be against a team of good players.

Your team's players may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your opponants may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your team may or may not play well as a team.

Your opponents may or may not play well as a team.

 

Then there's all sorts of wildcards such as a player lagging and losing a trade they shouldn't have, the pure RNG of shots (a tomatos snapshot going through somebodys ammo rack, a unicums fully aimed shot missing the target completely, etc).

 

To put it in perspective two equally skilled players can have winrates 5% apart or more purely because one of them has had the luck to get games that on average were easier to win.

 

There is one factor you haven't put in to that list that I wonder about - does the tank make any difference to the WR ?

For example - Noobmeter stats would tend to show that with two players who have exactly the same average skill level one playing exclusively Japanese Heavies and one playing exclusively French Heavies then the Japanese guy would on average have a WR of 50.86% and the French guy have an average WR of 48.06% (those are the averages of the average WR for HT from tier 5 to 10 for those countries)

And then tank types... Noobmeter stats show that in T6-10 over 44% of HTs have a WR of 50% or more, but only 33% of LTs have a WR of over 50% - so would you have a higher WR if you played exclusively HT each in turn than an equally skilled player who played exclusively LT's each in turn ?
(and you don't even want to think about the Arty players - only 30% of SPG's (T6-T10) have a WR of over 50%)

 

So statistics would show that you can make poor choices of tank which have a negative bearing on your WR
- or maybe it's just that all the good players play the Obj 907 (58% average WR) and all the noob players play the FV4005 (45% average WR) and these WR's would be reversed if the good and noob players swapped round
 



Lord_Edge #15 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5987 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostSirebellus, on 03 October 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

There is one factor you haven't put in to that list that I wonder about - does the tank make any difference to the WR ?

 

Oh of course, it wasn't an exclusive list, if one player uses predominantly OP tanks and the other uses predominantly UP tanks that will factor in too.  There are dozens of factors involved.



PowJay #16 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:42 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 35446 battles
  • 4,192
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

There's a long running misconception that the "luck" factor will even out over time, that after x thousand games a 52% player is simply better than a 47% player, the only common denominator between a players games is himself, etc but it's mostly nonsense, luck has a huge impact on player stats.  To explain it simply, it's not a black and white case of "for every game where you get a good team there will be a game where you get a bad team" there are numerous variable of random probability that go into every matchup.  For instance:

 

You may or may not be on a team of good players.

You may or may not be against a team of good players.

Your team's players may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your opponants may or may not actually perform well this game.

Your team may or may not play well as a team.

Your opponents may or may not play well as a team.

 

Then there's all sorts of wildcards such as a player lagging and losing a trade they shouldn't have, the pure RNG of shots (a tomatos snapshot going through somebodys ammo rack, a unicums fully aimed shot missing the target completely, etc).

 

To put it in perspective two equally skilled players can have winrates 5% apart or more purely because one of them has had the luck to get games that on average were easier to win.

 

And of course, you would not be spouting this BS if you had a 52% WR, because that would be skill.


 

If you are a better player, you will be more aware of what is going on in the battle (situational awareness) you will be more aware of where you can go to position yourself favourably- for example: NOT taking to the hill on Himmelsdorf in a SLOOOOOOOW heavy tank with -5 gun depression would be a thought. You will know which enemies you can afford to take on and which you must try and avoid/flank. You will be more aware of weak-spots and areas that you can damage, set on fire or even ammo-rack enemies. You WILL use Premium ammo when necessary and you will therefore do more damage. You will prepare your vehicles accordingly and use crew skills as appropriate- NO first skill all camo on the Maus! You will do all of these things and more and you will live longer, do more damage, kill more enemies and WIN more often.


 

If you do none of these things, then you will lose more often.



Echotun #17 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:43 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 20021 battles
  • 413
  • [FA-1] FA-1
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015

View PostRandomBlank, on 03 October 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

 

These legendary tiers above 10th? Because I definitely see this on tier X games.

 

Not nearly in the same volumes.

 

From what I see, the average wr in a tier 10 match is higher than in a tier 2 match. 



Lord_Edge #18 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5987 battles
  • 834
  • Member since:
    11-26-2016

View PostJigabachi, on 03 October 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

If you take two players, similar amount of matches played, no padding, no walletwarriors, who play singlerandoms only, one with 47%WR, the other one with 52%WR, the player with the higher WR is a much better player. That's how simple math and logic works.

 

No that's how super simply kiddie logic works, like I said in my post there are dozens of factors/variables involved.  It's just as possible that the 47% WR player is better than the 52% WR player and he had worse luck and was placed in matches that were on average harder to win.  The player is one of thirty people in a game, there is a serious limit to how much of an effect he can exert on the outcome with the exception of unicums.  People just like to downplay the importance of luck of the draw and randomness in helping decide the outcome in this game for some reason.

 

View Postxtram3x, on 03 October 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

If player with 25,000 battles (for example) win 1 extra game per 100 battles than someone else with 25,000 battles. They will have 1% better win rate.

All things being equal (which over many many battles they are) that 1 extra win is likely to be down to the player carrying when the other didn't.

 

No, it's called being within a margin of error lol.


 

NOPANs_Bicycle #19 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:48 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1471 battles
  • 58
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    03-11-2017
47% and 52% are equally bad, no need to get mad at each other over this

Enforcer1975 #20 Posted 03 October 2017 - 05:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20760 battles
  • 10,858
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostUbersonic, on 03 October 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

 

No that's how super simply kiddie logic works, like I said in my post there are dozens of factors/variables involved.  It's just as possible that the 47% WR player is better than the 52% WR player and he had worse luck and was placed in matches that were on average harder to win.  The player is one of thirty people in a game, there is a serious limit to how much of an effect he can exert on the outcome with the exception of unicums.  People just like to downplay the importance of luck of the draw and randomness in helping decide the outcome in this game for some reason.

 

I don't think you can have that much bad luck over the same amount of time. Skill will still show with a high enough sample.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users