Comments on: New WG personal rating analysis

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:28:48 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 08:27:17 +0000

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……..

By: Trolling Along

Trolling Along — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:56:01 +0000

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..

By: LordBlades

LordBlades — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:53:50 +0000

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.

By: Praetor77

Praetor77 — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:26:05 +0000

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.

By: Praetor77

Praetor77 — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:23:12 +0000

I created WN, and would have helped them for free on their rating.

By: Scudz

Scudz — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:20:57 +0000

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.

By: Prof

Prof — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:30:34 +0000

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.

By: Skarakien

Skarakien — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:47:11 +0000

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.

By: brynky

brynky — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:43:28 +0000

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.