fwhaatpiraat, on 06 March 2019 - 10:19 PM, said:

Hi everyone,

We all know there are various metrics around that (should) indicate skill in WoT: WN8, winrate, RushRating. However, all of these metrics have their own flaws and could be padded, which make them not trustworthy anymore. For instance, WN8 can be padded by farming damage from the red line, winrate can be padded by platooning and RR can be padded by getting Kamikaze medals. So because of this I figured it was time to create a new metric that is the ultimate indicator of skill. I defined the following requirements:

- The new metric should not be paddable.

- The metric takes into account what year it is: having 3k dpg in tanks in 2013 was a lot more impressive than 3k dpg in 2019. Therefore the metric scales with the year we're in.

- Bots with 0 WN8 (but still a decent-ish winrate) get filtered out.

- The new metric is based on the 'balance-constant'. Such as the speed of light in a vacuum and the gravitational constant. Having such a constant into the formula of the new metric contributes to the precision and trustworthyness of the metric.

I decided to call the new metric: **WN69**, since it is loosely based on WN8 and people are familiar with that metric and its predecessors like WN7. '69' just seems to fit the new metric well, hence 'WN69'. The WN69 for a given player is based on his/her WN8 rating. However, the WN69-formula acts like an adjustment for WN8, that makes the difference between WN8 (paddable) and WN69 (not paddable + filters out bots + takes the year into account).

The formula for WN69 is as follows:

All parameters seem kinda straightforward, I think. The term '8' is used because that's what WN69 is based on. What's so smart of the WN69 metric is that it gives an error when you fill in '0' as 'player WN8', since you cannot divide by zero. This way, bots with 0 WN8 won't have a WN69-value. Really neat, I'd say. As said, the balance constant is a kinda strange constant number, apparently the value of this number is: 727,75548859. Only downside (imo) is that it requires some calculations on a calculator.

Let's give an example for a player with 1850 WN8:

What is your WN69? It would be nice if all forumites do their calculation and share their WN69 here so we could discuss it.

I spotted an error, it is not 3.14, it is pi.

Now, some might wonder why pi is in this equation aswell. And to that I have no answer, except that pi is in many weird equations.

06:43 Added after 4 minutes

PervyPastryPuffer, on 06 March 2019 - 11:24 PM, said:

...that's not how your formula goes. ...or, not how I'd read it.

But, doing each step exactly how you said brought me to this number: **69,69000000022384** so that works.

That is exactly how the formula goes and how it should be read mathematically.

The other one would be.

WN8 times 8 times 2019 times 3.14 divided by, in brackets, wn8 times balance constant.

06:44 Added after 4 minutes

Maximu_invader, on 06 March 2019 - 11:39 PM, said:

i just made calculation,there is no difference in players who has 1500wn8 and 3000wn8. Im gonna do more calculations later,but i dont belive this formula is good..

22:41 Added after 2 minutes

let me guess it is 69.69000000022383....try again with different wn8...i belive it will be the same

Yes it will be the same, since the wn8 number is irrelevant to the outcome.

06:45 Added after 6 minutes

PervyPastryPuffer, on 06 March 2019 - 11:46 PM, said:

For pete's sake fwhaat how the flying **** do you come up with this stuff???

Basic maths.

It could have looked.

WN8 value times 69 divided by wn8 value.

It we could have been the formula for wn42 aswell.

((WN8 value + WR) / wn8 value) + current year × pi / tank constant (154.69). Round to nearest whole number.

Wn42 is of course a way better metric then wn69, since it takes winrate into account aswell.

**Edited by LordMuffin, 07 March 2019 - 08:37 AM.**