Main page

 Tomyslaf, on 17 February 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Even if the same player, different modules/equipments/crew do affect your contribution in the battles. Premium account only affect your average exp/income per battle, which are not taken into consideration of efficiency rate. Therefore, in this case, the merit of efficiency rate holds true.

In terms of win ratio, average damage/kill per battle collectively in the long run play a very important role in deciding if battles are won. Therefore, I would not be surprised if there a very strong co-relation between efficiency rate and win ratio. They are not the whole truth of how good a player is, but in general, very close to.

I don't like these kinds of topics at all. For me the most important thing in the game is to have fun... The deepest hatred I have is towards these bragging kiddos with their "ultimate" efficiency rating and average experiences. I use the tanks which I like and look cool and avoid any tank with annoying features/overpowered stuff. I'm not trying to sound butthurt or anything, I'm simply saying that as long as I'm having fun that's good enough for me.

Anyway my efficiency rating seems to be 981.11 which is average. Nothing special here >_>

I think the ER is a good indicator if someone is a good player or not. But it is just a raw indicator!!! A player with an ER of 800 is not as good as a player with 1600. But if the difference is getting lower, then the decision becomes difficoult. I dont think someone with an ER fo 1200 is much better then someon with 1100. Thats because there are some problems in the calculation which could be better.
1. The first problem is the weightening between the stats. Is it better to spot enemys or to cap? I dont think this can be done properly in all cases. I mean spotting and capping is both good, but you can argue about the factor how it should be weigthend in the ER. Maybe this problem can be solved(or at least improved) if you look at the data of a lot of people(and how they did with several tanks) in detail.
2. The matchmaking is another problem in this calculation as other persons have shown before.
3. etc.

But those things cant be solved easy in the calculation. Including Matchmaking and the usefullnes of capping and spotting in different situations cant be included into the calculation, so there will never be a perfect indicator for good play.
BUT there are things that could b improved in the calculation. Imagine a player which has very average stats. He kills 1 tank per game, is spotting 1 tank per game and making 1 capture/defense point per game. Now we come to the weighteing of tiers.

A player which only plays Pz4 and does as much dmg as he has Hitpoints(about 500 i think) will get an ER of about 1000. ->average = system works.

Now we come to a player which only plas IS4 (1790HP), which does as much dmg as he has HP as the player above. He will get an ER of 1330 points so he seems to be above average.

So there is a huge bonus for players which only play hightiers. This problem could be solved if the dependence between tier and damage would not be linear. One solution could be to divide damage with typical Hitpoints of that tier. A better aproximation could be done if you calculate the average dmg all players did with that tier (or tank, but this would make the calculation very difficoult).

Conclusion:

ER gives a raw indication how good a player is. There are some errors in the calculation which favour higher tier tanks in the dmg/battle statistic.

Regards Conchiber

 Judqment8, on 17 February 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

as i have say many times before, only retards enjoy defeats and to be killed in first 2 mints... and i do feel myself like retard when i die in first 2 mints by arty strike

i enjoy only good game, even defeat i don't hate so much if game-play was good... but most i enjoy win with good battle

but to lose cuz some players play for "fun" so they die in less than 2 mints leaving team to struggle without 1 2 3 5 tanks for rest of battle... or they sit in bush looking how teammates die one by one... or "put here whatever you think is not fun/good gameplay"...

and i really enjoy when i go to take one side, and all rest go to other side and instead of strong push forward, they all hide in same bush...

yeah... fun...  

 Soviet_Buggy, on 17 February 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

actually, premium affect more than you think...

getting more xp and money per battle = you get sooner top modules = better/easier game play

 ShipIt, on 17 February 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Though I get that causation has something to do with what causes what or whatever, but I still don't understand the full meaning of your terse reply - not being that familiar with statistics and all.

 Dewirix, on 17 February 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

But what if you put all of snib's unofficial data into the tool, wouldn't that increase the chance of meaningful output?

The reason I carry on with this is that some people write off eff. rating because they don't agree with the formula, some state that WR is irrelevant because of [insert generic anecdote].

In my simple mind I thought that if there is a significant correlation between WR and eff. rating, they mutually validate eachother as a meaningful way of describing player skill - for those who believe in large numbers and statistics, that is.

We have a saying in Norway, it may be universal: "It's futile to argue with those who deny [the existence of] the law of gravity"

 RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

1600++++
+++
i am playing stock tanks all day.
atm i am enjoying a stock Su-152, 70% winratio
without HE-nerf it would be 80%

1860.37 currently (1860.73 rounded) and still climbing ever so slowly which i find a bit odd (yet cool) given the (mostly) stock tanks i am currently working on.

around 950, but half or more of my games i played drunk

I would like to see WOT use this statistic, or their own calculation if they wanted so guage the effectiveness of a player at a glance. I do monitor my efficiency quite often but find certain players who use TD and SPG are at a disadvantage, accuracy will be off, and no-one is expecting a TD or SPG to get cap points.

All been said mines around 1429.

That formula would need some adjusting. Overvaluing cap/def/spotting in game where damage is only thing giving you real xp is a bit strange. I never cap if I can win without it.

Mine currently is: 1613

Only just found this topic and thought it looked interesting, but I have noticed some strange results. Sometimes when I consider myself to have had a poor game .. ( not much damage no kills etc or just got one shotted by a far superior tank.) My rating goes up??

On the other hand there have been occasions when having killed 3 enemy and damaged a further 4 as well as having spotted a couple and taken part in the capture of the base ... my rating .. to my surprise has gone down.

Don't get me wrong I do not consider myself an elite player by any measure and play for fun but this just got me interested in the stat side of it.

Two other points of interest are, 1. Nearly all my tanks are Tier 7. although my average lvl is 4.?.  and 2. Whenever I play my arty win or lose the rating goes down (I wonder if this is because of the lower hit ratio on most arty compared with tanks?)

 Flitch49, on 22 February 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

We all grinded the lower tiers to reach the higher tiers so we've all got proportionally large number of games at a lower level than what we play now. (if you've got a large number of tier 7's you've likely had to grind all lower tiers for all nations) Also the calculation of efficiency takes into acount things like how many defence and base caputure points you got, aswell as accuracy. So Arty will never get a high effiency using this tool and will affect your global effiency negatively even at the highest performance in these.

Im playing arty at the moment, and im having to balance my arty game with standard tank games simply to maintian a decent rating. Even though im generally quite succesfull in a SPG, by SPG standards.

Another proof of Cap Circle being the main focus of the formula.

One account - LiannaSilverwind.

Bat-Chat

Battles: 167
Kills: 383 (2.29)
Damage: 472 845 (2 831)

Efficiency rating: 3639.9

E-50

Battles: 118
Kills: 266 (2.25)
Damage: 324 987 (2 754)

Efficiency rating: 2515.9

Two medium tanks of 9th tier. So different efficiency, although damage and frags damage is similar!

And now... the reason.

Bat-Chat

Capture Points: 914 (5.47)
Defence points: 909 (5.44)
Tanks spotted: 317 (1.90)

E-50

Capture points: 191 (1.62)
Defence points: 367 (2.20)
Tanks spotted: 244 (2.07)

Do you want to rise your efficiency? Cap or defend, rest is not so important.  

My personal conclusion: efficiency wot-news formula does not prove anything and discriminates slow tanks.

 LiannaSilverwind, on 22 February 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

This.

And it also discriminates those who prefer to deal damage (i.e. play the game) instead of standing stupid in a circle watching a progress bar like cowards.

my rating with every tank included 1798.03

Foxdie_01. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I had not loked at it that way ... yes I have done a lot of grinding as you call it  ... Like I said i play for fun and set myself the goal of getting all tanks in the tree to elite status. (Don't ask ... it seemed like a good idea at the time.) I have pretty much done this up to tier 7 except for the French lines both currently at t5 and my 3 arty which are 5,6 & 6.  So yes my rating does include a lot of lower level grinding in some pretty dire tanks.

My conclusion is IMveryHO. This efficiency rating is a fun thing to try and improve on for yourself but is unreliable to use as a judge of how 'good' a player is.

PS. The French B1 is HORRIBLE. Undergunned, Underpowered, and I still have 21945 exp to grind before elite status. Oh well there goes my rating back down again.  

1690.58 and keeps growing.. was around 1600 two weeks ago.

 ogremage, on 23 February 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

This +1

There are a few conditions to compare statistics:

Only compare statistics of:

• Ungrouped gameplay (random)
• Same Tank
• Same Modules
• Same Equipment
• Same Crew Level

Anything else is, from the mathematical standpoint, rubbish.

Comparing a player that uses a Type 59 with a 100% crew, 2 fully trained skills, and all 3 slots equipped and using gold ammo with a player that drives a stock Panzer 3 with 50% crew and no equipment is very ignorant. These two will come up with a LARGE difference in W/L or Efficiency, but that is not because of player skill.

The statistics show you, HOW things are and not WHY.

The conclusion that PLAYER SKILL exclusively determines these values is wrong and unfounded.

 LiannaSilverwind, on 22 February 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Its always bad efficiency players that climb the hill in slow heavies at Himmelsdorf, camp next to arty at Mines or keep hugging a rock at Malinovka for 15 minutes..That cant be a coincidence.