Source: wot-news.com
Hello everyone,
today, we have something interesting, an analysis of the new personal rating by Edrard. For those who do not know, Edrard is the creator of Efficiency Rating and the owner of wot-news.com – so he is highly competent to comment on this latest Wargaming feature.
Edrard:
And so it was that with the patch 8.8, Wargaming decided to join the list of player rankings with its new invention, called Personal Player Rating (furthermore as PR). This article will consist of a small analysis of this rating, will mention good and bad sides, but whether to use the PR or not, that’s up to you. So for starters, let’s have a look at the formula:
bc – amount of battles played (“battlecount”)
win – winrate (interval 0-1)
surv – survival rate (interval 0-1)
hit – hitrate (0-1)
xp – average XP per battle
dmg – average dmg dealt per battle
The formula seems complicated at first glance, but it is not – its parameters can be seen clearly, including the modifiers and their influence on other values. For this article, I will use a (random) player with following parameters:
bс = 4000
bc088 = 100
win = 0.49
surv = 0.5
hit = 0.7
xp = 400
dmg = 1510
At first, let’s have a look at winrate influence on your rating:
f(x)=(2/(1+exp(-(4000)/4500))-1)*(3000/(1+exp((0.5-x)/0.03)) + 7000*0.3 + 6000*0.25 +5*(2/(1+exp(100/500))-1)*240 + 1340)
win rat 0 2011.6566893 0.1 2011.6586446 0.2 2011.7134535 0.3 2013.2478847 0.4 2054.7807946 0.5 2637.639092 0.6 3220.4973894 0.7 3262.0302993 0.8 3263.5647306 0.9 3263.6195394 1 3263.6214948
Here we can see that the influence of one percent winrate (regardless of how high his winrate is) is principially small. I personally never liked the idea of using winrate for one big reason: it’s not a definitive parameter – you can be an average player playing in a good platoon or company and have high winrate while not contributing anything to it. I suspect that in next patch, the statistics will be separated, at least by removing the companies and clanwars from it (just guessing), but the platoons are not going to be separated and I myself know of average players, who – despite not being skilled – have 55 percent winrate because of a good platoon. It looks like playing in platoons is beneficial, if you bring friends to the game, some of who can be good players – it will improve your rating. Or on the contrary – you can be a good player, who has bad luck of getting dropped into noob teams and therefore never improving the winrate over 50 pecent.
Next there is the survival rate, the connection between rating and survival rate is linear and not interesting in particular, for our player it will be like this:
f(x)=(2/(1+exp(-(4000)/4500))-1)*(3000/(1+exp((0.01)/0.03)) + 7000*(x-0.2) + 6000*0.25 +5*(2/(1+exp(100/500))-1)*240 + 1340)
surv f(x) 0 1073.6383124 0.1 1365,7634674 0.2 1657,8886225 0.3 1950.0137775 0.4 2242.1389326 0.5 2534.2640876 0.6 2826.3892426 0.7 3118.5143977 0.8 3410.6395527 0.9 3702.7647078 1 3994.8898628
This means that for one percent survival rate, you recieve roughly a 2,13 percent better rating. This parameter in general represents the player well, I wanted to introduce it to the Efficiency Rating for ages and I will definitely introduce it to Efficiency Rating 2, if there ever is such a thing. On the other hand, it might make people care too much about their survival. I don’t consider “ololol rush” to be a good strategy, but to sit in a bush when your team is attacking is not good either.
Next is the hitrate, here again the corellation is linear:
f(x)=(2/(1+exp(-(4000)/4500))-1)*(3000/(1+exp((0.01)/0.03)) + 7000*(0.3) + 6000*(x-0.45) +5*(2/(1+exp(100/500))-1)*240 + 1340)
x f(x) 0 781.5131573 0.1 1031.9061474 0.2 1282.2991374 0.3 1532.6921275 0.4 1783.0851175 0.5 2033.4781075 0.6 2283.8710975 0.7 2534.2640876 0.8 2784.6570776 0.9 3035,0500677 1 3285,4430577
Its influence is such that for every hitrate percent more, the rating improves by 0,8 percent. Let’s say it like this: this parameter also is not definitive, it is not clear what it represents in the formula, the skill to hit a silhouette, or possibly the favor of the RNG? I would understand if the percentage of shells that actually did damage was taken into consideration, but considering the fact the formula has already damage as a parameter, that would be redundant.
Next is the XP, tied to battles played, but that will be shown later, let’s skip it for now and deal with the average damage:
f(x)=(2/(1+exp(-(4000)/4500))-1)*(3000/(1+exp((0.01)/0.03)) + 7000*(0.3) + 6000*(0.25) +5*(2/(1+exp(100/500))-1)*240 + (x-170))
x f(x) 0 1904.108396 100 1945.840561 200 1987.572726 300 2029.304891 400 2071.037056 500 2112.769221 600 2154.501386 700 2196.233551 800 2237.9657161 900 2279.6978811 1000 2321.4300461 1100 2363.1622111 1200 2404.8943761 1300 2446.6265411 1400 2488.3587061 1500 2530.0908711 1600 2571.8230361 1700 2613.5552011 1800 2655.2873661 1900 2697.0195311 2000 2738.7516961 2100 2780.4838611 2200 2822.2160261 2300 2863.9481911 2400 2905.6803561 2500 2947.4125212 2600 2989.1446862 2700 3030,8768512 2800 3072,6090162 2900 3114.3411812 3000 3156.0733462
It is so that 100 average damage more improves your rating by 1,37 percent. To be honest, it’s strange to see such a small influence of average damage on PR, I always considered it one of the main parameters and it is good that it influences the PR at all. It’s difficult to say how big or small its influence is, for that you’d have to somehow rate the difficulty of improving your hitrate by 1 percent and damage per battle by 100, but subjectively I think its influence is too small.
And now the “fun stuff”: there are two parameters left – a multiplier, incorporating the average XP per battle in patch 0.8.8 and the amount of battles.
I didn’t want to create three-dimensional graph, it also makes no sense to make a graph of the corellation between the average XP and rating, I will only say that the influence of average XP per battle on rating will change based on how many battles did the player play from 0 to 4 percent.
Average experience is a very important parameter and the fact that Wargaming decided to use it without the premium account bonus is correct. If such a separation was implemented into stats in general, noone would have to invent any ratings and people would only look at the average experience, but unfortunately that’s not possible anymore. The influence of the average XP is completely sufficient and the fact it is dependent on battles played is correct, but unfortunately the average tech tier parameter was not used so that the use of low and high tier tech was balanced, but it’s not all bad (apart from the amount of battles needed to reach maximum rating). Let’s have a look what will happen, when the amount of average XP doesn’t increase, only the battles played do.
f(x)=(2/(1+exp(-(4000+x)/4500))-1)*(3000/(1+exp((0.01)/0.03)) + 7000*(0.3) + 6000*(0.25) +5*(2/(1+exp(-x/500))-1)*(240) + 1340)
x f(x) 0 2584,176422 100 2691,7371704 200 2799.9039583 300 2907.6111214 400 3013.8686036 500 3117.8258859 600 3218.8129491 700 3316.3562803 800 3410.1728441 900 3500.1479871 1000 3586.3041876 1100 3668.7668496 1200 3747.7317297 1300 3823.4367763 1400 3896.1395938 1500 3966.1006238 1600 4033.5714621 1700 4098.7874142 1800 4161.9633324 1900 4223.2918456 2000 4282.9432427 2100 4341.0664225 2200 4397.7904754 2300 4453.2265847 2400 4507.4700359 2500 4560.6021963 2600 4612.6923818 2700 4663.7995646 2800 4713.9739042 2900 4763,2580964 3000 4811,6885484
Yes, of course, to play 3000 battles in 30-40 days is difficult, but it’s possible, the influence of 100 battles will range from 4 percent (per first 100 battles played) to 1 percent (in the 2900-3000 battle range) – in this case it is absolutely not needed to play better, it is much easer than to – for example – increase the average damage per battle by 100. As if this wasn’t enough, this is possible to do not only until 3000 battles, but if you manage to play 7000 battles until the patch, your rating will increase more than two times and in our example it will change from 2584 to 6211. It was definitely overblown and I think it’s a bug, not an attempt to stimulate players to play more, I think 150 games would be enough to recieve the 97 percent of the bonus and not like today, when you have to play 2100 battles to reach it.
And last but not least, this is as “funny” as the previous one: the amount of battles played doesn’t only influence your rating (as described previously) once, it influences it in fact twice, because of the initial coefficient:
f(x)=((2/(1+exp(-x/4500))-1))
x f(x) 0 0 3000 0.3215127 6000 0.5827829 9000 0.7615942 12000 0.8700617 15000 0.9311096 18000 0.9640276 21000 0.9813681 24000 0.9903905 27000 0.9950548 30000 0.997458
In order to reach the 98 percent of your rating, you need to play 20 thousand battles – the motive is not hard to guess, you have to play, play, play!
And that’s it unfortunately, everyone can reach his own conclusions, but the question remains: what does such a rating show?
PS: Personally, I was a bit disappointed, I don’t understand, why such a huge company and the creator of the game decided to reinvent the wheel, while the wheels have long been invented by the community – and if they had to make such a decision, why not use the experience of the same community, why not consult major rating creators, why not find out what obstacles we did hit earlier, why not learn about the surveys/studies we made and what needs to be done to create an objective rating. I don’t understand…
math damn
Pardon me for a little something off-topic.
Did you receive refunds for Type 62 and Chinese 122mm gold ammo? Because I, playing on the Chinese server, didn’t (I’m not alone). And I desperately need refunds. Is there any way to send a complaint to wargaming directly?
The Chinese server is not ran by WG, WG has little to no jurisdiction for such things
Serves you right for buying so many gold rounds for the 122.
“Or on the contrary – you can be a good player, who has bad luck of getting dropped into noob teams and therefore never improving the winrate over 50 pecent.”
Quite incompetent statement from a man, that supposedly creates the statistical tools.
I agree, winrate is all about luck
Don’t be silly. Winrate can be influenced by the player himself. Ever seen a good player (WN6 1600+) with less than 50% win ratio? Yeah, me neither.
Winrate is really good indicator of how a particular player plays. Very roughly said, eg 40% of winrate is granted for just participating in a battle, 30% you can achieve by yourself and influence it and the remaining 30% is once again up to the matchmaker. In those 30% that you can influence is projected how you play. Generally, from around 50% up its a better player (I am not using term “average” since average player in WoT is really, really bad), from 55% up its a good player and from 60%, well, a really, really good player or rather a really good member of an exclusive platoon :) It must be a platoon of quite nasty players to affect so many battles so often that it moves your winrate above 60%. And if you see someone who has strangely high effi/wr compared to how he plays, do not forget that there are people who sell their accounts or share it with some people, in one clan I have been was for example a father who let his 7 or 9 years old son to play on his account.
You can move few % up or down, but it gives at least rough estimate how player plays. Yes, platoon can and do influence it by it, but it is not that significant, perhaps few % up or down. If you were really that bad, nobody would play with you on daily basis to make such an impact on your stats and sacrifice his stats.
And a little conspiracy for those who like that stuff – up to my 6000 or 7000 battles my WR was going up in linear way, from those battles it is a crazy roller coaster (but it still goes up, thou). This my comment made me think if it is influenced by the fact that around that time I started to platoon quite often, these days I rarely play solo. Not because of stats but because it is not fun anymore. I mostly play with clanmates with effi below mine (mine around 1200, their around 1100, not too big of an difference but still, if you want to go into details of “platoon stats padding”)
Yep, plenty of unciums-wannabes in the game, that are superior but are getting bad teams… for twenty thousand battles.
I second this! If you KNOW how to play, you WILL have over 50% win ratio. No matter how shitty your team is, you can and will make a difference.
True!!!
im not the best player but: I managed to pull me out of the 42%hole up to 49%
So there is the chance that one player decides a match.
As example if you help an other Tank in your team to Survive, so he can keep helping the team.
Or you Keep your teams Back clean, preventing them to get flanked or simply Kill 6-10 enemies in one match(wich is not very easy). But there are much ways to improve your winrate.
I believe this achiviement is superior to pulling winrate from 49% to 55%. Good luck in future!
I don’t know what kind of battles you had lately. But mine were very frustrating. Not saying that I don’t agree that you, yourself have a big part to get a win or not. But sometimes you just can’t compete with the donkeys that you have to call teammates. Specially if you are not top predator.
90% of all the battles I played since a week+ (before I didn’t have it THIS much) have MM that just screws with you from the very beginning. If it’s not dropping you in a tier 10 battle while you drive a tier 8 it will just outright give an advantage to the enemy team in tier vehicles.
You can only do so much if you get dropped into battles with tanks of 2 tiers higher the difference in firepower and HP points is just too big.
And about the unbalance this is about 5%-10% of the matches it just gives an extra tier 10 vehicle to the enemy team or more. I have been dropped in a battle in my IS-2 where the lowest tier on the enemy side was tier 8. While my side had 3 tier 7 vehicles and as the enemy team also had an extra tier 9. Been getting these more often now as well.
Boo hoo. Don’t mean shit in the grand scheme of your aggregate statistics if you know how to play.
Your issues were addressed in Q&A, it was pointed out to be caused by stress on the matchmaker server so they want to improve its computing power or something. One strange day I was put in 3 or 4 battles where we had 5 or more vehicles of higher tier and man I do remember well a battle where I was in my T43, our team mostly tier 7 if not all of us, their made of tier 5-6 and many, many stock tanks. I left that battle with 9 kills (it is my record in that vehicle), I felt guilty for achieving it in such a battle like if I was cheating. And the map was Ensk. I also got some screenshot of one battle where my team has 5 more higher tiers than enemy. And many similar occurrences of unfair play happened in my journey.
Anyway, to the point; I find that I affect victory more if I play exceptionally in lower tiered vehicle, for example if I do an outstanding work in tier 7 or 8 in a tier 9-10 battle, it is more likely to cause a win, since from top dog it is expected (sometimes they are asked for too much) to do tremendous work but if some “nobody” kills or severely cripples their top tanks when nobody expects it, it is different. How many battles you were in E75 against many lower tiered, you gained top gun, steel wall, top wall steel gun or whatever award, made more dmg than other top 3 players together and still lose? It happens more often than it should.
It is still happening. I had a game today where the opponents had three more tier7s, than my team, plus a tier6 more, with tier7 as top tier. Some strange problem that computing power. I REALLY wouldnt mind a minute of waiting if it guaranteed me a fair chance to win. These situations kill the fun, and destroy the game.
However, on not too big amounts of battles, it is possible to not make enough of a difference.
Take my own stats for example (http://www.noobmeter.com/player/eu/LordBlades/508378220).
Over the course of my last 1000 battles (At least), almost all my ratings have been constantly improving, but WR has been constantly going down.
You would have to have tremendously bad luck to be a good player with 50% WR (after thousands of games).
It is clear that WR is only semi-reliable, due to the aforementioned platoon factor. And really, ’60 day’-like stats should only be considered; who care how scrubby a player used to be months ago?
““Or on the contrary – you can be a good player, who has bad luck of getting dropped into noob teams and therefore never improving the winrate over 50 pecent.”
Quite incompetent statement from a man, that supposedly creates the statistical tools.”
Statistically it is possible for a great player to have a win rate less than 50% just as it is statistically possible to roll a 6 at dice 1000 times in a row. Both are very unlikely but given enough players it is possible. Lets make a clear distinction between statistics and the deluded noob shouters on chat.
Theoretically possible, yes. A realistic enough scenario to be relevant? Not so much.
Some very, very, very long time in school we were taught some very, very long formula on how to calculate such things, like rolling a dice with 50% chance at all throws. I got a feeling that that formula could be modified for having a first roll with 50%, second with 60, third with 70 etc or other modifications were also possible.
The point is, the chance for the same outcome in more, exactly same rolls is not the same as in one single throw. Sometimes strange thing happens, but not too often and not for too long. These statistics are used in casino frauds, or rather were in the past, nowadays they got protections against it put into the rules. In fact, statistically it is put that if the chances are indeed always equal, the resulted statistics will be in the long run also equal for both possibilities with minor differences.
Therefor, you are proved wrong.
True, what he said makes no sense. Bad luck and all, but it CANT influence you over thousands of games. If the player has 30k games and 49% win ratio, it is not luck at this point, he/she just aint that good (unless they have started improving).
Sorry, it makes perfect sense even if in general it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s simple. You do not win half your games because you have a 50% win rate, it is because you have a 50% win rate that you win half the games. So if you can measure the factors that contribute to winning a game independently, that is far superior. Win Rate is a good rule of thumb, but it doesn’t tell the story. Other stats like average damage, hit rate, average experience are better so why not use them instead?
My bad, that line is confusing. I meant to say you have a 50% win rate because you win half your games.
Some of them we cant have, and its always a VERY complex mixture of different factors that go into winning a game. Bouncing shots, killing high profile targets, scouting and NOT seeing an enemy there (meaning there is an enemy elsewhere), dealing module damage, distracting, ganging, tracking, simply using assault momentum to push the enemy vehicles in a different direction on the map (does not even mean dealing damage to them), covering high damage teammates etc.
Its a lot more complex then just win ratio, but it is also a lot more complex then just dealing damage and scouting and/or capping. This new WG rating may need some work, but, honestly, its as good as any other in the end really :( .
That’s why the winrate is the best indicator of skill. It takes all kind of good perfmormance to win a battle.
Of course at leat some portion of battles, where your direct influence made a win out of a defeat. It’s true that you can’t win all battles. Even the best players can’t really pull more than 70+ % wins in the long run. It means that they were able to influence 22% of their battles (exemplary for 70%, 70-48=22).
If you’re good you will be able to overcome your teams bad performance in larger number of battles. If youre average your influence is null, if youre bad your influence on your team performance is negative. It’s so simple. Anyone with sub 48% is dragging his teams down. Anyone higher than 48% WR is pulling his teams towards victory statistically.
Theres no such thing as ‘bad teams’, as over thousands of battles team influence averages to neutral and only your personal performance matters.
Exactly what I said :P. I just mean that this indicator WG made is as good as any in the end. Maybe needs some work, but so do all other indicators as well.
Average XP without premium and win ratio are generally the two most important stats in my eyes. Though playing with the player a few days still beats both in the end.
I agree it’s hard to measure all the variables. For instance, how does one measure one’s contribution as a caller or field commander?
Win rate means fuck all in a game with platoons, clan wars and tank companies. If I only played platoons, and only with the very best players I know, and only in the most OP tanks in my garage, I could have 80% win rate. Would not mean much, as playing solo with a mix of tanks I’d probably not get more than 55% at most.
Of course the reverse is true as well. I’m always amused seeing a platoon of guys with sub 48% win rates. Each of them are actually reducing their chance to win compared to random… Its taking an already bad player and making them play one handed.
Even if having such terrible bad luck for it to actually have an impact over 30k (or whatever large) number of games is highly unlikely, given the number of players it’s not impossible,
If something has a one in a million chance of happening, it has probably happened to about 50 guys in WOT.
Actually it is possible, that a good player has bad winrate. A chance of that happening is very low, but it is possible. The more games you have the less the probability of it happening. So there could be a few good players with bad winrate, but only a few. And it should not be used by losers to justify their bad winrate, since the chance of it happening is very very very low.
It’s also possible that a good player has all his shots RNG rolls be bad and bounce everything and thus do bad damage, thus invalidating all the personal stats as a source for a rating as well.
The entire basis for statistics is the assumption that the highly unlikely didn’t happen.
Winrate and Damage done (or XP if access to that unboosted) are the most important factors for judging skill. This is especially true as it’s difficult to intentionally boost both at once.
Jep, he lost all credibility right there. The most obvious statistical fallacy ever dreamed up by baddies who don’t want to admit they are bad.
So much math, too little Asians to solve it for me… Oh wait…
ROFL :D :D
I don’t suppose WG actually forbade the guys making the formula to look around as it would seem too ridiculous. And if so, why didn’t the creators just gather the already experienced members and have a nice chat about which factors matter and which not. This proves to me that somewhere in the decisional chain lies a man akin to the Kakapo parrot, an animal so primitive that when confronted with a predator, it will try to hump it.
You have no idea of what actually constitutes a “primitive” animal or the evolution of behavioral patterns in isolated island populations, I see. As usual this leads to hilariously failed similes.
This is good, I never thought about it that way, thanks for pointing that out!
Burned by evolutionary theory! Ouch
So, It seems that if you want to Stat Pad, you need to play your higher tanks repeatedly?
If so, then this favours Premium players who can afford this, and people with T8 premiums
if people have a high WR on tier10 it means more than their winrate on their t6… its more demanding, the competiition is harder and so on….you cant statspad just like that :D
Not talking about w/r, with high tier battles, you will do more damage, and earn more XP. Non premium players have to grind T5s for creds, and so will be doing T5 amounts of damage, and ear. Players with T8 premiums will grind T8 tanks, and so will have T8 amounts of damage and XP. Moreover Premium players will be able to spend more time playing high tier tanks without having to regularly cash grind at T5
You’re wrong twice:
1. Since the Type 59 debacle, premium tier 8s are underpowered. IS3 for example is better than any of them.
2. If you’re a good player, and particularly if you’re willing to use gold shells, you’re better playing in a tier 9 than a 10, XP wise. Playing against high tier tanks will give you a very nice xp bonus.
For example, I got far better results playing the AT 7 in platoon with tanks a tier higher, because it can pen higher tanks easily, and their pen advantage is pretty irrelevant, because whether or not they damage you depends on whether they know where you weakspot is, not what their gun can pen.
I didn’t say that a premium T8 was better (XP wise) than a standard T8, I said it was better than a standard T5
But again how will you fund your playing and get enough to buy new tanks if you only go T9 and 10? This is my point, Standard players will have to play T5 games to fund new purchases, and to pay for loss making T8+ tanks. Premium account players will be able to play less games to keep funded, and T8 premium owners will gain incresed XP for their cash grinding games, because they take place at a higher tier.
Good players can play T8 battles without premium account or premium tank.
Boy aren’t you a bright one. Even if the IS-3 is better than any other tier 8 premium, people will grind credits in tier 8 premiums if they have them. It’s a question of cash flow, not OP tanks, since non-premium players can’t afford to play tier 10′s exclusively unless they’re REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good.
So what he’s saying is that people without premium or premium tanks will have lower average damage because they spend more time in ‘money making’ tiers instead of 10′s.
Sorry, i disagree.
I think it is about equally difficult to achieve a certain winrate in both t6+ and t10 tanks.
Granted, the average opponents skill is a good deal higher in t10 games, but mind the fact that you are ALWAYS TOP TIER in T10 tanks, which in my opinion pretty much balances the harder competition out.
SS, there is no good players with a WR below 50% due to bad teams…good players carry. bad players are being carried. if one team has more good players with reasonable support they will win…or at least their chance to win is higher…
my point is that you wont find a player below 50% (lets say 48%) being as skilled as someone with above 50% WR (lets say 55%). im not saying WR is everything bt given the chance that you can check the amoutn of TC battles on noobmeter, WR is fairly accurate and hard to push without noticing.
Platooning can massively increase your win rate. Those players with 65%+ win rate are generally people who almost only platoon, and never solo.
Duh, decent platoon means you’re guaranteed to not be the only guy in the team who can find his ass without searching with both hands. Carrying the battle all by yourself, while possible (even I have occasionally managed that), is rather difficult and even one competent partner helps an awful lot.
It’s easier to get really high win rates in a platoon, but you still need to be good players to benifit from a platoon as a platoon of baddies will just get extremely bad win rates. Also if you platoon with players better then you to boost your win rate, then you are likely to get worse personal stats as they will steal your kills from you by being better killers.
Its just a another thing made WG style.
They dont give a shit about what community thinks, and do the things their own way, and of course turn out to be bullshit.
GG WG.
ESKAX :D
STRONK !!!!
Please stop pretending you understood a word of the article and aren’t just reflexively hateposting.
Hah, I have over 25k battles, 99% in pubs. While I’ve been on the cusp of purple for awhile, won’t really matter with this PR anymore. Probably will have a higher PR than most 70%+ unicums with 5k matches. I am okay with this.
yeah because those 5k 70+ whores are players who do nothing but platooning and TC all the time to pad their stats
Good to know that those pad-accounts wont work anymore
This rating has 2 main purposes:
1. Play a lot of battles. Not hard to guess why.
2. Play higher tier battles for more average exp and more average damage. This is to “encourage” players to play more on high tiers which are funded by premium accounts and premium tanks.
It’s only business. Want better rating? Play and pay. Everything else is just bullshit.
Its also supposed to prevent “seal-clubbing”. IE very expereience players with elite tier 2-3 tanks and awesome crews simply dominating games in platoons and raising their stats.
If WG would care about sealclubbing, they wouldn’t make low tier premium tanks (often OP tanks) and especially not give out low tier premium tanks as gifts. Currently LTPs are everywhere in low tier battles. Why? Because it’s the new toy.
Low tier premium tanks are often making less money than normal tanks of the same tier. Their purpose is “to have fun”, which means owning low tier newbs. Who the hell would buy a T2 or T3 premium tank to farm cash? Noone. They are for seal clubbing.
So how about you explain what part exactly of the T1E6 or LTP or T-127 is “OP”? The audience is listening.
I said OFTEN OP tanks, not that all of them are. Can’t you read? Micro maus is dead but there are quite a lot of OP low tier premium tanks left. If you don’t know what am I talking about, you are potato. Experienced players know which are the seal clubbing low premium OP shits.
T1E6 and LTP are used only because they were free tanks, not because they are OP, but they are used by experienced players on low tiers. Isn’t that seal clubbing?
Okay, list the OPs then. And YOU were the one who first spoke of the freebie gift-tanks in that context I’d point out.
I see it’s hard to process for your tiny mind when a sentence is divided. I was right to assume that you are a potato. Chop yourself up and hop in the oven to make yourself useful. Don’t forget to turn on the oven (I knew you will forget it).
Still waiting for that lowdown on these legenadry “often OP lowtier premiums” I hear you talking about but have never seen… and don’t bother trying to red-herring with lame personal attacks around that foot you shoved in your mouth back there.
If you would stop and think for a moment instead of being utterly stupid, maybe you would realize the contradiction between fighting against seal clubbers/pedobears and giving out low tier premium tanks in masses for every registered player. But no, you just have to be stupid and stick to your idiocy.
And since you are too stupid to understand something simple like this, I will not go even further to waste my time with discussing tank balance. You can’t argue with idiots.
Yeah, I kinda figured you couldn’t back that one up.
Yeah I kinda figured that you are the sort of idiot who doesn’t know that he is an idiot. WG says: Fuck you sealclubbers, here are some low tier gift tanks! And you suck it up like a good little retard, not seeing any connection between their actions. The perfect customer. Dumb as fuck.
Said tanks are underpowered compared to “regulars” of the same tier so, yeah.
You fail to understand anything, you just keep posting bullshit that you think is proving that you are right, but it just makes you look even more stupid.
1. WG give out low tier gift tanks to combat seal clubbers. Perfect logic.
2. WG makes OP low tier premium tanks like the famous micro maus and leave them OP as shit for months or a year in order to combat seal clubbers. (If you say micro maus was not OP, maybe check the original H35 and see how is micro maus much better.) Perfect logic again.
3. WG keeps pumping out low tier premium tanks and guess what, not the micro maus is the only low tier premium tank that needed nerfing, after many months of course, when they sold enough of them for seal clubbers. Perfect logic again, seal clubbers be damned.
Common sense is enough to see that point 1 is already against your stupidity. But if you pass it somehow, there is point 2 and then if you would pass that, there is point 3. First prove me that giving out free low tiers has decreased the number of seal clubbers and then we can discuss point 2. I am eagerly awaiting to hear how is giving a free low tier tank for experienced users decreasing the number of seal clubbers.
You lean on the “Micromaus” – which gets nasty MM and has been out of store since forever – like a drunk on a lamppost; not for enlightenment but for support.
Still waiting for you to explain which lowtier prems are so “OP” as to “need nerfing” too. ‘Cause in my personal experience it was some of the REGULARS that were OP as fuck, notably the T18 and Hetzer with derps before the HEAT shell nerfs…
Reminder: all premium tanks are one way or another weaker than regs of the same tier fully elited. Being able to “sealclub” with them actually requires a degree of skill, all the more so as they’re by no means the only lowtiers veterans play for amusement.
So the list of OP low-tier premiums will not be forthcoming? Figured as much.
Micromaus has been OP for long enough to get a reputation, to help some players to get 15 kills in a single battle. But why are you jumping to point 2 already when you still fail to answer point 1? It’s because you are an idiot, that’s why, but you will never admit it.
…so about that list? And I’d point out most of my sealclubbing rides are NOT premiums.
And the Micromaus is pretty much ancient history; being so hung up on it mainly demonstrates an inability to come up with any other arguments from the corner you painted yourself into.
I see you are demonstrating your intelligence again. You still fail to see point 1. You dismiss point 2 because it happened in the past and so it doesn’t matter and after failing to see the 2 easier points, you want to discuss point 3?
How could anyone talk with you about tank balance when you are so stupid that you fail the common sense test which is presented by point 1? You are so absolutely retarded that you don’t see a contradiction between what WG says and what it does, but you think you are clever enough to talk about balance. This is why I said that you are the kind of idiot who doesn’t know that he is an idiot. I bet you think that you know a lot about every tank, even if you don’t have them and while you are so stupid that you fail to have basic common sense, you think that you are some sort of WoT guru.
This is why it’s not worth to talk about point 3, because you will just keep repeating your stupid opinions that comes from someone who is just plain fucking stupid beyond any hope.
You don’t want to talk about #2 and #3 because you have by now realised you made a serious tactical mistake with them on account of being completely incapable of backing them up with anything, duh. Don’t really see why you even bother trying to cover up something so glaringly obvious.
As for #1, you don’t need prem tanks to sealclub (and those aren’t actually all that brilliant for it either) as repeatedly pointed out so the gift tanks have very little bearing on the matter anyway. Short of outright trying to ban veteran players from owning lowtiers – an obviously retarded and unfeasible idea – configuring the “official” performance metric so as to make the practice relatively useless for statpadding is about as sensible a measure as any.
Or if you have better ideas for that do tell.
So. Still going to try hiding behind hilariously transparent excuses and infantile protestations of righteous indignation?
I don’t want to talk about anything beyond point 1 with you, because you are too stupid to understand even that. And that point is the most simple. If you give a free tank for someone, probably he will try it. When he tries it, he is playing in low tier battles. And if he keeps playing it, that is what you call seal clubbing. It should be very easy to understand this, but you can’t. And because of this, we can’t move to point 2, because point 2 is a tiny bit more complex and point 3 requires the most knowledge to understand. You however lack a brain to pass point 1, because you are an idiot. And the best thing is, that you keep repeating your bullshit and convince yourself that you are not utterly stupid while you prove the opposite by saying things like gift tanks didn’t increase the number of seal clubbers. You are right, this is why LTPs were swarming low tier battles for days and you can still see a lot of them on lower tiers. Noone is playing them, those fucking tanks are just there on their own, they are not driven by seal clubbers, noooooo.
You can keep posting your bullshit, but with every post you make, you look dumber and dumber.
Everyone who had an acc at the day got an LTP wholly irrespective of their experience and skill level; I’m fairly sure newbies puttering about the low tiers isn’t what’s called “sealclubbing”. Also that tank’s not exactly awesome so they’re arguably just more fodder for *actual* sealclubbers…
Not sure whether it’s cute or tedious how you seem to fantasize it isn’t painfully obvious to Everyone & Dog, Inc. why you’re now trying to pretend #2 and #3 never existed.
For once you have a half sentence that is correct but then of course you have to ruin with more stupidity. If you give a T3 tank for a new player, it’s a gift for his current tier. If you give a T3 tank for an experienced player, it is an invitation for seal clubbing. In best case, only new players used those gift tanks, but we all know that this is bullshit and many old players were invited back to tier 3.
I am not pretending that point 2 and 3 is not existing, I am just saying that you specifically are too stupid to understand it. As you are also too stupid to think further and ask yourself the question why did they make a formula that gives a bonus up to tier 10 if they wanted to prevent seal clubbing only. Because a player who plays T6-T8 battles is a seal clubber? The formula is giving the best results for top tier players and every battle below that is decreasing your rating, not just bottom tier battles. For someone who has a bean sized brain, this is already suspicious, but not for you, because you are the average dumb as fuck customer.
And with this shining intelligence, you want to argue about balance. You are pathetic.
Anyone interested in trolling the lowtiers for whatever purpose will do so *anyway* gift tanks or no, so that’s a moot point. Which is why I have things like T-80 and Pz 1C and Medium Mk. II in my garage.
And now you’re trying to claim your inability to make a list of these mythical “OP lowtier premiums” is because *I* am “too stupid to understand it”? Bitch please. You’re not fooling ANYONE save maybe yourself, depending on how strong your powers of self-delusion are (current evidence suggest OVER 9000).
And if you bothered actually engaging your brain, such as it now is, rather than persisting in pigheaded denialism and trite personal attacks you’d realise the lowtiers have puny HP pools and shooting them duly doesn’t exactly produce piles of EXP – relative to the tier rather less than the middle tiers, as there’s a rather steep durability increase around T4-5 or so.
The implications for statpadding ought to be fairly self-evident.
the french low tier td and arty are, imho, pretty op for their tier.
Yes, you are too stupid to understand it. Why bother? You just keep repeating your bullshit useless opinion.
And you are still denying that gift tanks are increasing the number of seal clubbers, which makes you the ultimate retard around here. You can post all sorts of crap to prove that you are right, but anyone with common sense will just laugh on how fucking stupid you are.
Ask the 12 dudes I facerolled the last game single handedly in my LTP. That tank can be majorly badass if played right.
That goes for most any tank.
said it before and im gonna say it again…the competition on tierX is bigger than on tier 4 or 6 or 8. you ahve your fair amount of idiots as well but its no sealclubbing…hence its taken into account much more.
btw, i can affort my tierX with premium… its all up to the player
Yeah sure, that is the reason, not that playing T10 tanks cost more than playing T5 tanks. It’s about the competition, not about the money. WG never wanted money in the first place. I have 5K battles in T8 premium tanks. If I would farm cash in T5-6 tanks, I would have a much lower rating, thanks to much lower average damage and average exp. And free players don’t have a choice, they have to play low tier battles. Which means they are automatically disqualified to have a top rating.
Verry good analysys made by Edrard also with samples.
To bad WG is to stubborn to understand its no shame to work with the community. Except Edrard, the creators of WN6 could also land some help for sure.
Right now this formula its useless as the old global rating was. As long as both official WG formulas were relying heavily on quantity, not quality, of course no one cared about them.
The fundamental flaw with this rating system is that it’s not designed to show how good or bad a player is, but rather to encourage/discourage certain behavior.
WG don’t want people sealclubbing, they do want people playing lots of games and using tier 8 premiums. Fair enough, but using a rating system to do this is a FAIL.
Not only the WG-Rating broken but the analysis of Edrard also. A few points:
- battle count has no place in any good rating. Its BS. People have different learning curves … .
- avg XP is also highly flawed. Sure the removed premium bonus, but just by playing platoon or company I can increase my WR up to ~20%. And with a higher WR I get better XP, regardless whether I play good or bad. Furthermore the XP formula is unknown … . You get rewarded for BS like close combat, ok with some heavies, but if I can stay hidden while spotting myself and doing damage, with a high viewrange tank I get less XP than fighting from 20m ( scouts, meds … )
- survival rate? Sure it has some correlation with skill, but its not that great and overall it will have a negative influence like the cap/effiency idiots. The noobs and medicore players often arnt thinking that far ahead sadly. Camping while the rest of the dies, just to be killed as the last one.
- avg damage? Belongs in every rating, but without avg tiers its meaningless. 500 damage with a t1 is great but pathetic in an E100.
- hitrate? just facepalm … who cares about fucking HR, damage and kills win games. I take the 70% HR guy into my team, who does 2000 avg damage at t8, and not the moron with 80% who only manages 1000 avg damage at t8.
Furthermore:
” Or on the contrary – you can be a good player, who has bad luck of getting dropped into noob teams and therefore never improving the winrate over 50 pecent.”
over the course of 5K+ battles??? Do really mean that, seriously????
No wonder Efficiency rating is barely better than the BS WG deliverd with their rating … .
Yupp, efficiency is one of the worst ratings in the community, now we know why.
yeah, the “wr says nothing about skill” line was pretty pathetic, something you read in those tinfoil-apeshit-crazy threads about wg handing out auto-bounces and such to pull you to 50% wr.
lost lots of credibility there.
As I said before this rating serves Wargaming purposes, not communty ones. This rating is designed for:
1) encouraging players to keep pushing button “Battle!”;
2) protecting rating from flooding by twinkies of purple players;
3) making a hints which simple stats to improve if player wants to progress;
4) give players more than one way to increase their rating.
And nothing is about comparing players’ skills. Communty is smart enough to create and support their own ratings. Can’t wait for WN8 tbh.
I don’t care too much about how the stats are made up, but why would anyone would put faith in “average damage” alone?
This only encourage even more players to troll around in imbalanced tier x tank destroyers and similar which generally deal way more damage than equal tier heavy and medium tanks. When 5-6k damage pr battle gets the norm and upto 12k is possible the ingame balance screws over all rating based on damage…
average damage alone is at the most very limited for rating purposes
Show me someone with 5-6k average damage per battle on a T10TD (or any other tank for that matter).
Stop posting bullshit, would you?
pheewww…. brain just exploded …. that was good stuff!
WG strategy: Want to be a good player? Just play, play and play! And don’t forget to buy more gold while you do!
What do you THINK learning to do stuff largely boils down to? Martial artists don’t do those endless kata repeats just for show you know.
I don’t agree with Edrard in 2 cases.
1. Win ratio is important becouse if you play as active medium tank u usually do a distraction. You cause no damage but you make other tanks spinning their heads arround. You create confusion. And that is not reflected by any of current ratings as it is impossible to measure. Sometimes you die fast becouse of that but in the meantime your teamates decimates enemy shooting in their backs.
2. Heaving to much weight on survival rate will destroy the game. You can allready see many “High Effi” players hiding in bushes all game long hunting frags and damage. If you say “you are medium, move and scout for arty” he just respond “FU noob” being full HP.
It should be taken into account but not linear. And with smaller weight.
It is attitude like yours, on how games should be played, that ruins games for some people.
OK, so you believe all meds are the same, and all should be played the same? The Leopard PTA, a paper thin tier9 Light TD with that 10second reload on the last gun, should go brawl with the russian dingmachines like the t54 JUST BECAUSE IT IS A MEDIUM? Shouldn’t be sitting back and supporting the heavies or mediums push because you are sad he has more hp than you? What have you been smoking son?
I will NEVER agree with camping for camping sake, and I agree that heavies sitting in the bush sniping cause they are chickenshits is bad. But your notion of tank role is just as shitty. L2P
Did this guy touch you somewhere and you’re just afraid to say it?
Show us on the tank doll…
On the squishy part, sir. Please hurt the bad man.
Quoting myself “” if you play as active medium tank””
I agree there are brawling types like T-54 (my favourite), and there are paper long reload types like Leo PTA (i grind it now). Playstyle is completly different.
That’s why I wrote “active medium tank”.
And meds I usually see in the bushes are E50/E50M. I know they have really good sniping gun but they have also frontal armor and ramming capabilities that can be usefull when there is no one else to be on front line.
And by capping i mean near base location.
Leo PTA usually should be 1 line behind front brawlers. ready to shoot and hide. If needed to use it’s speed to relocate.
Recently I was platooning 2 x T-54 + 1 Leo PTA in such way and it was fun.
And if I touched you with my T-54 recently then I’m sorry. Next time I wil be gentle and I will give you lollipop ;)
Ah no, no worries. T54s don’t usually even see me till at least 2 shots are in them, so you couldn’t have hurt me ;)
But its not an encounter on the battlefield that ‘touched me’. Your clarification made things acceptable by me, because in a e50M it really is a waste not to be front line, its practically a heavy tank.
The situation where a Leo PTA snipes in a random match , hidden from anything and dishing out steady pain, and then a russian heavy comes and pushes him out of cover because he wants a spotter for his blind arse… and of course the Leo explodes under 6 shots at once, with the heavy following 30 seconds later….
THAT pisses me off. :D Your post just resembled those morons’ opinion.
On the other hand, I’ve played an active medium with the Leo PTA too, in exactly the setup you mentioned, and yes, its is a fun thing. But in a platoon. I’m slowly realizing some tanks should only be played in platoons, the random games re just a waste of time in them… most of the time.
Answer.. because WG employees are all selfish and cocky guys..
OR,, (how wg would say it) the community is wrong and u are not worth to listen
Drink OR post, mmmmkay?
Frank, Edrard: what is really important and really needed is 30day rating (or last 300battles rating) – because it would show your real up to date skill; NOT some mythical “experience” from thousands of battles played, that some guys may never get because they never learn; NOT average number from years of playing, because they are a huge brake thay may keep you behind, especially if you are slow learner or there were no good data on the game then – and some guys chasing stats make new accounts because of that.
That is what WG should do, they have all the data. Instead they “invented” another marketing tool…
If they had a rating that took only the base average experience, and maybe mixed in the player win rate. Then that would be my goto rating.
Math haters, unite!
Last!
First of all, I would not consider Edrard much of an expert; the Eff formula has always been flawed and it’s utterly redundant with the WN series around, and denying the validity of winrate is insane when tons of data and common sense prove it directly shows (provided a fair comparison) how gud@tanx someone is.
Secondly, the WG rating is idiotic since it includes two “means to an end” stats (survival, hit rate) and battle count. I’ve got closer to 17k battles under my belt, but there are a lot of players that got much better than me within 5k battles… and they are rated lower than me. I also fail to see why they didn’t record spotting damage- the holy grail of scouts- in the first place.
PR already stands for Noobmeter’s Performance Rating. Around for a year and works extremely well.
http://blog.noobmeter.com/2013/07/noobmeter-performance-rating-algorithm.html
Hear hear. +1
PR and the WN# ratings are the best we got right now.
WG fails again. Ratings and XVM are not for stat padding and epeen.
It is the wish of the players for skill based matchmaking. If we cant have that we get the next best thing:
a rough estimation of “skill” for every player. so we can see who is dangerous and who isnt.
“Ratings and XVM are not for stat padding and epeen.”
BWHAHAHAHAHA
no rating worth a damn shit until the community decides to use it.
good players/clans will just stick to wn7 or eff (wn8 or eff2), and dont care about this PR crap.
bad players/clans may want to use it as a measurement, but who cares about those anyway?
Why edrad dont rebuild efficiency rating and fix cap/def bug? efficiency is now worst rating
Serb said a while back stats mean nothing. So they really only mean anything to us.
Guys . Its the hardest thing in the world to realize that someone is actually plays better than you and / or invested more -> 1. Time into understanding coremechanics
> 2. Time into understanding statistical behavior of masses at certain situations
> 3. Learned to abuse 1nd and 2nd.
12 years ago i played quake 3 on some lan tournaments. (I did pretty well those times) but every time some unknown guy played against me. He accused me of cheating. Refusing to beleave someone is better at what he thought he is good at.
Same shit happening to me in tanks.
Im being accused of every mortal sin in the world for having stats like mine.
Yes they are abnormally high .
65% win and 2k wn6 18k+ battles
And as most played tier is 10 !!!
U know how i got it ? No platoons no companies no cws(well a lil cws. Cant refuse sometimes)
Whole key is selflearning.
Everytime i die i analize why this happened and how could i avoid it next time. Problem is a problem only when its got a solution .
Everytime i miss i dont blame WG i blame my impatience for not waiting for a full zoom in (crapload of times u got no time to zoom in full cuz u’ll be dead)
And its obviously stupid to rant why cant u hit shit with a gun that got 0.4+ accuracy from 400+ meters.
Very important thing is to USE ALWAYS server recticle . It will show you how much your playstile may change because your ping.
And last . If you initially used to play solo. Platoon mates are just a topping on my cake.
P.S. everytime i loose or die i dont rant on WG . I rant on myself to mot being adaptive enuff and as a result ppl always ask me how the fuck u do that and not going crazy . It helps me to learn quick .
Sorry for typos. Doin it from my phone
You just might be onto something there. Thnx.
When you play tonks to unwind after a long day at a stressy job, sometimes you care not about stats.
Then I got the Centurion Mk 7/1
After that every battle I analyzed, I found the weaknesses, I found the strengths. And I built from there. I was already aware of the tactical (immediate area) and strategic (whole map) situation and how to read and gauge things due to my own life experiences.
There are instances where I will ask people to go into training room with me just to do some tests.
I consider myself a shitty player. Might be my chronic depression but I know there are better players out there. My stance in the game is always to be support. I’ll lead a charge when necessary, but only if I feel like YOLOing or I actually can do it.
Dunno, just a scrub/red player from SEA talking.
Thanks for taking the time to do this analysis. Unfortunately, it simply shows what some of us already knew – the new rating is useless for a number of different reasons.
Personally, I think including hit rate was the most idiotic choice, followed closely by skewing it towards very high battle counts.
i have been called a noob and a bad player by someone with a 50% win rate and a 1000 efficiency – because my winrate is 49% yet my efficiency is 1200. Winrate means next to NOTHING. Yes a bad player will USUALLY have a low winrate while a great player will USUALLY have a higher winrate, but it is not etched in stone. If you took platooning’s w/r out of the equation and only had solo-pub winrate then you would see a drastic drop among the higher winrate players. No matter how good you are you simply CANNOT make a significant difference in W/R with most teams. Bad is bad. Not even Jingles or Garbad or any of the other ‘greats’ could fix a lot of teams I have encountered. Some people have a skill when it comes to turning a definite win into a loss.
Peopla CAN have WR “above their skills” by various means, sure, and that goes for eff and whatever too. WR “below” their skills, though? Only if they regularly sabotage their own teams on purpose.
This most likely means that you favor your own survial highly and this helps pad your own personal damage done stats while being bad for your win rate.
“why not use the experience of the same community, why not consult major rating creators, why not find out what obstacles we did hit earlier, why not learn about the surveys/studies we made and what needs to be done to create an objective rating. I don’t understand…”
because it’s WG.
Almost all their employees are people of limited intellectual capabilities who cannot ackowledge the fact and use the “I am official WG employye” hammer to boos their feeling of importance.
It’s the same with clan wars or tournaments, they prefer their own, even stupid ideas.
I don’t like Edrads analysis, because:
1. he misses the important part about Win Ratio – that it is really important around 50% and not important anywhere else, he uses the table with the effect of wr each 10% and misses that point completely
2. wg rating depends on the sum of few factors, so describing the effect of 1 factor as a percentage of total rating is not neccessarily sensible
3. survival ratio is not neccessarily connected with trolololo suicide rush. It more depends on how aggressive you play in the middle and end part of the battle.
In other words it is less useful in eliminating suiciders then it is effective to promote the parasites – guys who enjoy high rating by sitting safely in the back sniping while others take the risk, spot and take damage.
Lol because its WG ? And they are subpar human beings compared to you ?
Thats some awesome logical statement.
Pure polish butthurt.
Ill remind you that those subpar human beings created the game you played whole alot of time. But how could this happen ??? I cant get it.
Homegrown bench crititics are so funny
I agree 80% with this. Including survival is dumb. That means light tank players are automatically screwed by the rating, and SPG players get a big boost.
Same for hit rate. I constantly like to expose enemies by destroying their cover when I have no targets to shoot at, does that make me a worse player? Probably not.
So since now hiding in a corner of map with full camo and not shooting even once makes you a good player. GJ WG as usualy.
Sure is gonna improve your WR too.
Nope, but WR hardly matters in this formula anyway.
It’s not exactly going to do wonders for any of your other metrics either I’d point out.
so basically you get a high score if you have high battles played.
Doesn’t matter that I am doing 2 kills and 2 spots per game and winning 80%+, I’m obviously worse than someone with 20k battles and a 47% winrate
do the math first, do the talking later…
Why wg reinvented the wheel of player ratings? Because is cheaper. Any info from the guys who did player ratings will cost them money…so f…them.
Not new news about that number of battles count big time in wg formula…they stated that in order to determin players to play on their old account and not in new ones with gold statistics. I think this policy of wg is their response to the wellknown issue of players who make second accounts with fearsome staTistics in order to sell them for good money and wg is not allright with this kind of things.
For me this form of player raiting isn’t usefull because it doesn’t apear in battle like the other statistics shown by xvm in real time in battle. So it’s a piece of info that is a little bit unconfortable to use in real time of battle.
I created WN, and would have helped them for free on their rating.
i have a question: why don’t we calculate “tank power”, tiers, opponent-friendly PR, PC power and ping into the formula? i mean i personally have a crappy old pc (5 fps most of the time with lowest graphic options. rarely seen a 11-12 fps moment), but i try all what i can do and my winrate is just 50%. my friend has a lot better computer (30 fps at least with highest options), he usually trololorushes and stil has a 60% WR. my opponents in tier 1 are “new players”, thus i have a 57% WR with MS-1. with my KV-1 75% of games i am the top tank thus i have approx 55% WR despite i just “camp on base”.
to be short: when it comes to calculate “how good you play” i think we should include every possible aspect to determine the real rating.
and sorry for my broken english… not a native.
Honestly the only thing one needs to look at in this is the last two graphs and the only take home is this rating system is a joke as an actual measure of player skill and influence on a given game.
“: Personally, I was a bit disappointed, I don’t understand, why such a huge company and the creator of the game decided to reinvent the wheel, while the wheels have long been invented by the community ”
Because none of the wheels created by the community rewarded players for playing more. they could have, if they were so inclined, made the best measure yet and instead they come out with this garbage. The lack of surprise is matched only by the disappointment.
Games played is being over valued here. once you hit around 10k games it becomes mostly irrelevant. It’s being used as a % modifier for players score. Meaning at about 10K games you get 85% of your score. At 20K about 98% of your score. What’s that mean? It means that two people of exactly equal score, one having 10k battles the other 20k will have a difference of 13% in scores.. More perspective. 30K battles only nets you 99% meaning same two people again 10k battles later will have nearly identical scores, 1% difference.
Essentially all the battle count does is eliminate the 5k unicum reroll having godlike stats. That same reroll at 15k battles will still have better stats than 95% of the other players, because after a certain thresthold 12k – 18k the battle count ceases to have a meaningful contribution to your score.
Stats mean nothing…™
In case you haven’t realised, “overall generalised” statistics on this game mean absolutely nothing at all…
..and before you all jump on the bandwagon and have a go, think about this…
What does a Light Scout do?
What does a Heavy do?
What does an SPG do??
all are entirely different tanks, with entirely different roles…
You cannot, ever, compare the skill of a player in these 3 entirely different vehicles with a “Generalised Efficiency Rating”
Each tank needs an entirely different set of co-efficients to work effectively.
A scout needs high spotting/spotting damage and survival rates.
Damage and kills are irrelevant (except possibly arty/scout kills.. but that proves my point)
An SPG needs high damage/kill rates
Spotting is completely irrelevant, survival not “really” countable, if an enemy scout gets through its not really your fault, survival then is pure luck.
A Heavy needs high damage/kill/survival and possibly high potential damage received..
No spotting, survival is also debateble if potential damage is massive, because that means you have taken the hits allowing your teammates to kill the enemy, or you’r shit at avoiding enemy…
TD’s and mediums are even harder to quantify since they can be entirely different tanks, compare the SU’s with an M18? Not really..
I agree with you, the PR should reflect on the tank/spg/td you play and the role they play and award them accordingly, at present it does not.
I think we should thank the OP for actually breaking down and explaining how the PR works and what influences PR in the first place. Instead I see ppl bagging him etc etc yet I fail to see anyone coming up with a better formula and implementing.
If ppl bothered to read WG’s reason for bringing in the PR system in the first place they said something on the lines of being in line with ESports rating. They didnt bring in the PR just to nullify all the stat padders and there are many many of those who seem to need an ego boost by running around in purple stats yet failing to deliver the goods in battle, which I see quiet often.
To all those stat padders keep believing your good by seal clubbing, you fight inexperienced players grinding up the low tiers and then calling yourself good lolz
I regularly check stat padders that I come across in battles in tier 10 and see that the most played tanks they have are usually tier 5 and below while making the occasional excursion into a tier 10 battle to attempt to justify the purple colour they now have, sadly more often than not they come up short and fail to deliver as tier 10 battles actually require skills and situation awareness, yes you do find alot of 45% players now in tier 10 battles in tier 10 tanks, thanks to WG not putting a cap and allowing successful botters to attain a tier 10 tank. Cap tier 10 tank battles with nothing less than 48% wr, anything less with more than 5k battles played should be denied until such time as they make an effort to actually want to play and learn how to play.
Trolling begin……..