Main page

RustyGalloway, on 21 January 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Thank you  
It is the closest one to beeing useful I have seen so far too.
But it could be improved alot by either making it more complex(unlikely because we dont have enough stats from WG for that) or simply waiting till we get a higher amount of samples.
The higher amount of samples would lessen the significance of most of my arguments alot.(also unlikely to happen because the number needed would exceed the average players grinding endurance)

An idea would be to simply not count lower tiers in this rating and only allow this rating to be done at samplerates like 2k battles at tier8+.
This should increase accuracy alot.

People saying that Emu has the high efficiency rating because he has high tiers only (or almost) should stop talking like that because you can reach the same efficiency with lower tier tanks due to less competetiveness of your enemy team so that it's much easier for you to do great.
Moreover, this efficiency rating doesn't have to include goldammo usage, because it's just how efficient this player is and how good it is to have him in the team, including equipment of his tank/research level, not about his skill. That's why it's an efficiency rating, not a skill rating. Same goes for people arguing that it's bad because it doesn't include TCs/platoons/CWs.


Edit:
Have you looked at Emu's average damage and exp? He doesn't have this high efficiency rating, just because he skipped tanks. He could even have twice your efficiency rating if he played with M3 Lee all the time, because he's just an excellent player.

HendrikZ, on 21 January 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

So, I said deceiving to some point. But worthless?

so, if you play more higher tier tanks, you are better player.....ok...

Doolio, on 21 January 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Well that was from someone having some statistics courses at university, so my judgement might be a bit harsh  

JeffyShow, on 21 January 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

No, but if you play higher tier meds/heavies you will have it alot easier to get a high score at this rating.

JeffyShow, on 21 January 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

This rating calculates it the other way around. You have to spot, defend, capture, damage and destroy more with a higher average tier if you want to get the same rating.

HendrikZ, on 21 January 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

You will still get almost as much as you have with the better tanks. It's about player performance, not about tier. Just go make a new account, play it for 100 battles or 200 and see how the efficiency rating is still the same (+/- 100) or even a little higher...

Darn, I am at a miserable 712... Must be doing something very wrong, albeit I feel I'm getting better

Actually, I do get the feeling that very often I die before being able to make any difference on the battlefield, that must be it. Aww, the burning sensation of a pride hurt.
But now that there's a number I can challenge myself against, I shall do so

RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

Emu has that high rating simply because he's insanely good. On the other hand, the calculator does favor higer tiers (as I have shown in my first post in this topic) and the fact that you can get similar rating by slaugtering clueless newbies in your fully upgraded low tier tank with 100% crew actually speaks against the rating calculator.

RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

If you want to know how good it is to have a player in your team, win ratio is the stat you should look at, not efficiency rating. There are many things that lead to victory, but the efficiency calculator doesn't take them into account.

RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

As I have shown in my first post, it does take the average tier into account, but not enough. The only two things that changed there were average damage per battle and average tier. In the second case, there was significantly better damage/own HP ratio and it still resulted in singificantly lower efficiency rating.

RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

Contradiction. And not a small one.

I'm at 1521.16, which isn't bad given that I play casually.

Kvetoslav, on 21 January 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

I meant performance in the second one. And your 'examples' don't proof anything. Why is the first thing against the rating calculator?
It's just about the players performance in his tier, not about his personal skill. Skill != performance. And a players efficiency != a players skill.
And winratio is completely and utterly worthless, because it can be influenced by tons of other things and it doesn't display anything about the players skill. Please, never say that winratio is the stat in this thread again.

Zenith, on 21 January 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

just out of curiosity, what is actually a casual player?

Paaranoja, on 21 January 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

One who only plays a few matches a day, and doesn't sit there hitting battle over, and over, and over again, for hours at a time. Would have thought it obvious really.

A casual player wouldn't need gold noob tanks to get better, cause he plays for fun, not for his e-peen.

RainbowDash_GER, on 21 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

This is where you are wrong at a very elemental point of statistics.
As the number of samples increases the influence of random factors decreases... so after thousands of battles you will atleast see a good tendency towards player skill. The more battles the more accurate it is.

Nectaria, on 21 January 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Who says they're used to get better? Guess you don't understand the purpose of them, but that's okay, you haven't been here very long.

1367.7 thanks for posting Rainbowdash. Some scarily high ratings.

ARGH .

This rating system is by no means perfect, but it sure as hell beats the pointless arguments over win%, damage done, XP or whatever other

arbitrary measure you like. I never thought it would start pointless ones over how you can beat the system, or how it's weighed incorrectly.

Still you live and learn.

Kvetoslav, on 21 January 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

EUhm...Excuse me?

Was that the best you could come up with to my post?  If so next time refrain

Zenith, on 21 January 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Because gold tanks make you better?

They make you look BLING BLING on my screen yes ^^ but better... nope.

I still believe in trial and error the normal way.  May take longer then the wallet warrior yes, but at least I make it with the odds of every non-credit card user out there.  Now THAT is showing something.  I wouldn't care less if you could buy me the entire peninsula of some uncharted island.  If you don't know how to manage it then it's a waste of time.

Zenith, on 21 January 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Auch, touched by a veteran in a gold noob tank. I'm so hurt.

If you really want to call yourself a casual player, why did you get a gold noob tank to get you up there faster with xp and credits anyway?

But ok, probably another post you consider an excuse. Nothing new, I'm used to it.