New WG personal rating in 0.8.9

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

in patch 0.8.9, the personal rating formula was changed to the following one:

rat1

Input parameters:

bc – amount of battles played
win – your winrate (from 0 to 1 format, eg. 55 percent winrate = 0,55)
surv – percentage of battles the player survived (0 to 1)
hit – hit rate (0 to 1)
xp – average experience per battle
dmg – average damage done per battle

Previously, the amount of battles played was quite influential, its influence was reduced. The influence of the amount of battles is expressed in a coefficient, that multiplies other numbers. Now it is like this:

If you have 500 battles, the entire rating is multiplied by 0,1
If you have 3000 battles, the entire rating is multiplied by 0,5
If you have 5000 battles, the entire rating is multiplied by 0,7
If you have 9000 battles, the entire rating is multiplied by 0,9
After 9000 battles it’s multiplied by 1

If you want more detailed analysis, check out OMGgamer’s post in English.

133 thoughts on “New WG personal rating in 0.8.9”

      • If the formula doesn’t distinguish between 1500 dmg done in Tier 7 compared to a Tier 10, then its not accurate. Or, another metric it can look at is the Damage caused/received.

        Anyway, these ratings will not be considered relevant for categorizing players by skill (for clan recruitment and such) unless the issue of battles and tier spread are taken into account.

        • It’s easier to win in low tiers since there a lot of players who actually do not fully understand what is going around, to not mention stock tanks and 75% crews.

          Don’t be proud about sealclubbing. You can enjoy it, just don’t bring it as “skill” – you will be laughed at.

          • I think WN did the right thing by putting a ceiling on low tier tank games, but at the same time, all ratings do take tank tiers into consideration when calculating average damage. Seal clubbing argument is only valid so far when it comes to ratings and should not be applied to mid tier+ games. Try Seal clubbing Tier 9s in your Tier 7s… or Tier 7s in your Tier 5s. There is a big difference among those tiers and its hard to go against +2 tier tanks/Tds beyond Mid tiers due to the power creep that comes with higher tiers, not to mention much larger health pools (comparing tier 5 to Tier 7… almost double health.

            • that is about the dumbest analogy to date… get a freaking clue.. you can’t just discredit over half the tanks due to you being butthurt..

          • “It’s easier to win in low tiers since there a lot of players who actually do not fully understand what is going around, to not mention stock tanks and 75% crews.”

            You seem to be implying categorical cluelessness isn’t painfully common even at T10.

            • For anyone who is saying Win Rate has nothing to do with skill is your win rate above or below 50%?

  4. After “Lose enough battles and anyone can drive tier 10″ now there’s “Play enough battles and anyone can have a good rating.”
    This rating system is a load of horseshit.

    • “After 9000 battles it’s multiplied by 1″

      So it only affects beginners’ and Xth account “unicums” ratings.

      • So? There are plenty of people who learned to play wwell within a few thousand battles, and the system arbitrariyl punishes them.

        As for rerolls, how does it even matter? As far as I’m concerned, rocking a 70% winrate and dealing >2k damage with tier VIIs means you are highly skilled, regardless of essentially erasing your “noob days”.

        • This is just plain stupid.
          There is noobs with 9000+ battles and there is skilled players with just 2000 or 3000 battles.

          This WG formula is just another unnecessary feature introduced.
          I will keep going with WN7 / WN8. It’s not perfect but superior to other formulas IMO.

  5. I still wonder …. ask myself … why is for WG the winrate the most important thing?

    Even with 3 players its sometimes (mostly) not possible (at least in Tier 9 or Tier 10 battles) to win or change an battle to win it.
    And as the newest statistic show less then 30% of the players are playin in clans so the most players i guess are playin alone, so its even harder to really influence an battle, even as unicum player.

    So … why is those winrate the most important thing …

    • because u will have to see this on your overall games..

      games + winrate is a good enough indicator most of the time..
      want it exactly? use win8

      • hmm well … games + winrate might be good when i play 1vs1 or maybe 5vs5 … but 15vs15 … how high can my influence be … what happen when i am only playing scouttanks, i do that pretty good, scout as much as possible but non of the other 14 players do smth with those scouted tank and all games which i play as scout are lost …

        in my eyes those winrate thingy is pretty bad cause as i said one or even 3 players are to less to have influence of an battle … (mostly)

        • my scouts nearly all have >60% winrate, just because you cant achieve that doesnt mean its impossible

        • How high can it be?

          Easy to figure out. Say you have a 51%…means 1 out of every 100 games changes from a defeat to a win in your favor. Thus you win 51 out of 100 times.

          That is assuming 50/100 will be win predetermined and 50/100 will be loss with average skill. Which after thousands of battles is an accurate assumption.

          Though, as you know the average winrate is closer to 49% when you factor in draws.

      • you are all using wrong terms, you are influencing game constantly in 15 vs 15, what you are NOT doing is “game changing” the course of battle.
        so if you have high win rate, this means that you are “influencing” the battle towards positive, especially if you stay alive to the end, as the team is having a good player that knows to use his tank to win. the logic that a player have no influence on the game is like saying that IN football attacker has no influence on chances to win because there is 11 players in the team. win is the point, better you play, more time you will win, there is no high efficiency player that dose not have more then 51% win rate.

    • Because if you play well you will have good WR. It is quite accurate on the long run and a very simple statistic. It has only one downside: It can easily be increased with platoon, and even more with TC.

      • it has in my eyes more downsides … as i tried to describe …

        even if i play well kill 3 tanks (average) make 3000-6000 dmg many games are an loss …
        but that doesnt mean that i am an bad player …

        • How come then no-one with good effi/performance/WN has bad WR? Every good player also has a good WR along with his/her rating. If you do 3-6k dmg per game you will win more games than someone who does nothing.

          • Depends of if i shoot on important or less important ones …
            i guess everyone heard someone smth saying like: i did 6k dmg …. 6 kills .. still lost …

        • You have influence on lets say 20% of battles for that reason most of people WR are from 45% to 65%

    • You have to look at it long term. In one battle a good player might not be able to do anything to help his team win, but in 1000 battles chances are a good player will help his team win some games which a poor player would not.

      So after 10,000 battles etc a good player would be 55%, a poor player about 47% etc.

      • in my eyes there should be some more things which playes a role …

        especially … do i play my kind of tank as it should be played.
        do i scout with an scout or do i camp somewhere in the back. (driven km + scouted enemys)
        as TD … do i shoot and make dmg on usefull targets … top tier tanks / scouts …

        maybe the statistic should be done after the match …
        did i do smth against the top players of the other team … (i hope u know what i mean)
        so the “game” has to look in each battle who played good and who not and did i did (try) to do smth against that ….

        • good players staY alive to the end of the game, and no they are not camping, campers on the other hand all most never stay alive, as they get surrounded and kill of even in the end.

        • All these stats dont matter, if you find a way to win 65% while camping in the back with a scout it still means you’re playing well. Winning is the goal so that is what’s important.

    • Don’t know why battles survived is included because all it does is promote camping. I’ve never seen a good player with a survival rate higher than 45%, always shit campers who just wank themselves off at the back of the map.

        • your stats are a joke, you are one of the retarded campers that anon meant, 100% sealclubbing and not even 65% winrate, thats just totally bad.

          • Of course you are right oh mighty one! I sealclub in my almighty T-28 and managed only 820 average damage in the last 193 games, which were mostly tier 5! That is of course much too low and everbody who can play a bit manages at leat three times his HP in damage on average, because the T-28 is soooo OP!

            Ps.: You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

            • sealclubbing is easy, I do more than 3x my hp in dmg on my cruiser, but since I am not camping I do get a 75% winrate in it.

            • Yeah great…. you do realise that there is a big difference between tier 2 and tier 4? With a tier 4 tank you have an effective MM of +2/-1 , because you will next to never meet tier 2 tanks, unless they are in a fail platoon. On the other hand it is not strange to be one of two or three tier 4 tanks in a tier 6 battle! Tier 5 and 6 are used by many players to grind for credits so you will meet more players there who have good crews and equip on their tanks. Because of that it is imho a lot easier to gain a great winrate on tier 2 then on tier 4. It is even harder to do with a tank like the T-28, which can be damaged by everbody and his mom, is big like a bus and can be 1-shooted by many tanks you encounter.
              Bye the way i did more battles in the last week in my t-28 than you did in your cruiser all together. I had a winrate of 72.54%, is that more to your liking?

      • 19k battles,
        47.5% Survived
        57.7% wr
        1900+ WN8
        Yeah, I just camped in the back…

        People always try to find excuses why they don’t suck.

        • never understand players which are afraid to die in tank game…those supporters come to help from bushes too late.but what can you do…maybe im too risky, but bushes are for td’s. good luck

    • Imposible change lose to win? I win solo so mutch games that my team lost in first few minutes, that you would be supprised…

    • Without premium account.

      Only battles played after 0.8.8 are taken in account.

      If you have played less than 2,000 battles after 0.8.8, it will be taken partially (in same way as penalty by battle count works for whole rating).

  10. SS, I am sorry to interfere, but I believe it isn’t accurate to state “After 9000 battles it’s multiplied by 1″.

    As far as i can understand It goes closer and closer to 1 after 9,000 battles and reach something like 0,999 after 15,000 battles. Sources I have read so far states “after 9,000 battles coefficient of battles count is close to 1 and its change do not greatly affect overall rating anymore”.

  11. Why include amount of battles played? that has no bearing on how good a player you are.

    Excluding scout spotting performance why? Scouting is a valuable skill they have ignored it.

    Why is battle teir not in the mix. It takes more skill to be effective in high tier battles and would also give less reward to the stat paddler seal clobbers in their 4 skill Lol tractors.

    • Because WG pulled this stat from their ass, and by making amount of battles an important factor, thy are rewarding “loyal” players.

  13. pro player = > 58% wr
    good player = > 49 % wr
    noob => 44%
    bot= 30 %

    its easy WR is a good idea. When u learn the game your WR go up..if your wr dont go up…play more good :P

    only problem is with pro friend platooon you can go up your wr easy..

    • more like:
      good player=>58%
      noob=>49%
      bot=>44%
      total ultraretard(these are rare)=>30%

      • Average W/R = noob? Now that was really ulraretard. (Not rare on WoT forums where ultraretards tend to dwell.)

        • yes, the average player in wot has no fucking idea what they are doing and therefore is a noob. Or would you really say the avg player has any understanding of this game?

          • The average player is average. Not bad, not good. What the fuck do you want? 60% average W/R in the game? You are a moron.

            • yes the average player is average, but still totally clueless, the average just happens to be totally clueless, Im not saying the avg winrate is any different, Im just saying that because the avg player is so bad that people who cant get an above avg winrate are also bad.

            • No wonder that good players whine about the playerbase all day when the requirement for being acceptable is 58%. For guys who are so obsessed about statistics, you are all pretty stupid. Bad and good in this case is relative. A player with average win ratio has average performance. Not good and not bad either. It doesn’t matter what do you think about them, the statistics that you love so much are showing that they have average skill amongst the playerbase of this game.

              Mommy, I always get teams with full of yellow and red noobs, do something.
              Well mommy will change everything and suddenly every player will be good and have higher than 50% W/R. Because mommy can do anything for his little whining baby.

              I admire your intelligence, really.

            • You are confused between relative skill and absolute skill. I say that the person of average relative skill has got quite low absolute skill. By this I mean that very little skill is actually needed to achieve average stats.

              Also I didnt say you need to have 58% to be acceptable, I said you need it to be good, quite a difference.

            • Oh really? If you are so clever, then tell me how do you measure absolute skill? I am curious how is your absolute skill rating system working. Is it carved into stone somewhere? Some cavemans defined it 10.000 years ago based on some lost knowledge and humans adapted it without any revision?

              Really, entertain me please. Define what is absolute skill, how is it measured and why.

            • Look at it like this. Lets assume skill could be measured by a simple value.
              Now we define the highest skill value as 1000. A player with skill value 1000 makes no mistakes. A player with skill value of 0 is always AFK and does nothing at all. (Lets not look at teamkillers, because teamkilling requires skill and thus the SV of a teamkiller would be higher that the SV of a AFK-Bot.)
              These would be absolute values. A player CANT be better than 1000 and CANT be worse than 0. The game has been around for some time, so lets say the current best player has an absolute skill value of 800. Even that player is just a human and makes mistakes (also there might be tactics or techniques that nobody came up with yet). “Good” players would rank around a SV of 500-600. The average player has a SV of 200.
              If you compare that average SV of 200 with the maximum possible SV you will see, that the average skill is actually pretty low. And that is totally fine, since there is a lot of time required to get to SVs higher than that.
              This is the concept of ABSOLUTE skill.
              The concept of RELATIVE skill however would compare the skill of a player to the average skill of the playerbase. An average player in a relative skill system would gravitate around the middle of the scale system. Lets say 100. The rest of the playerbase would have values depending on their skill difference to the average player. Thus, a player being twice as good as the average player would have a SV of 200. A player half as good would get 50. The relative system has no absolute maximum (obvious isn’t it?).
              And that is why AngryBanana said, that average players look just fine in the relative skill system, but if you look at absolute skill, you notice that they don’t know all that much about the game at all.

              The absolute system is also the reason why good players tend to see themselves as “average”, because they know about half about the game that there is to know. And because they are just “average” all players that are not as good, have to be “bad” players.

              If you want I can elaborate on the whole topic, but I think this gives everyone a basic idea.

              Cheers,
              Patu

          • I defined it myself, its not a fact and I never said it was, its just an opinion of me that the average player is clueless. You could kinda measure it by looking at knowledge of how the gamemechanics work, you’ll see that avg players dont know a lot about that, but then again there’s other parts of skill than that.

            • Just to sum it up.

              You took your subjective opinion, created a scaling for players based on your opinion and you call it “absolute skill”. Because your subjective opinion is absolute.

              I don’t need to comment on this. Someone who can define absolute skill surely knows that this is the absolute truth and there is no irony in it. None at all.

            • I didnt absolute as to say that my opinion is the only truth, not at all. I only used the word absolute to distinguish from relative skill, since its the only way to explain how the avg player can be bad

            • The only thing you have explained is that the average player is bad, because you say so. You define what is bad and as such, anything can be bad when you say it is.

              Noone except you understands how is your absolute skill rating made up, because you made it up based on nothing. The only real rating that makes sense to everyone is the relative skill.

            • Scroll up a bit, I just wrote an explanation.
              I think I understand AngryBanana pretty well.

            • The question here is not that you understand him or not. There is nothing to understand about made up definitions. You either agree with him, or not. Your decision also depends on your own subjective opinion, just like his.

              And your idea of measuring absolute skill has many flaws. For example 2 afk players can easily have different W/R during 10 battles, thanks to randomness. Of course you can say that it will be about equal after 100, 1000, 10 000 or 1 000 000 battles but you sure need a lot of battles to make the effect of randomness as low as you think it’s acceptable. How many battles are needed exactly until the randomness will be irrelevant? I don’t know. What is a relevant difference anyway? 0.01 percent difference? Lower? Higher?
              If you have done this experiment, you can have an approximate value on the relative skill scale that will show you the absolute 0 skill.

              But then you also have to figure out the performance of the absolute perfect player.
              If you can’t do it, these numbers will say nothing. You set up 800 for the best player and 500-600 for good players, but really these numbers say nothing.

              But just for the fun of it, I assume you realize that the perfect player is using the most OP tank, has unlimited gold and use it to gain every available advantage and he is platooning with 2 other perfect players to have the best possible statistics, exploiting every flaw of the game. And he plays perfectly, which is again hard to define, because we don’t know what is the perfect gameplay, we may know what is the most efficient that is used in the game by the best player, but the perfect is unknown.
              You still rated the best player 800 out of 1000 and good players have 500-600. I don’t agree with this, but I can’t really argue against it, because there is no way to tell what is the absolute rating of the best WoT player and what is the absolute rating of players with let’s say 65% W/R.

            • +1 Patu very good point and reasoning to why ‘average Joe’ is what it is and why better players frown upon the average…

              But the trend is that even with average these days you won’t go over 48 with being average, the win hungry ‘elite’ gobble the 1% from them. ;)

            • Look the numbers I came up with are just EXAMPLES, the numbers don’t say anything, and they don’t need to. All I did was to show you the concept of ABSOLUTE skill. Not more and not less. It is impossible to have accurate calculations of absolute skill because there is too much we don’t know. But it is not necessarily less accurate than any other system.
              Also I don’t see where I said that WR is equivalent to skill, or even correlates.

              The “flaws” that you come up with, are just made up by you. They don’t have to do anything with what I wrote.

              Hint: Maybe you should read the article too.

              Cheers,
              Patu

            • I know what he meant by the concept of absolute skill. I also know why are good players thinking that red/yellow players are potato. I am a good player myself.

              But I had to point it out that the concept of absolute skill is nothing else than subjective opinion and as such, it is useless to measure player skill. None of you are able to rate any player with this, because those numbers are just made up. My argument is 200 strong and your argument is only 150 strong. Now tell me what that means. Even I have no idea. And this is what you do here with this absolute skill idea.

              The only stat that I can see and makes sense is let’s say W/R that tells me that the player is winning or losing more often. If he is average, he is neutral. If he is a loser, he is a burden. If he is above average, he is a good contribution to the team.
              Calling someone with average W/R a noob is just unnecessary insult and egoistic bloating. He may not be a good player, but at least he is winning as much as he is losing. Is he a burden for you? No. Could you get a better player? Yes. But you could also have worse. Players who are caught raging in the chat about a noob 50+% W/R player should be put in teams with 40% W/R players for 100 battles. By the time their penalty would expire, they would know what is hell in WoT.

              It is clear why are good players so angry at bad players. Good players learn about the game, maybe even practice in training room and then they get a team with full of yellow, average, casual players. But there is nothing you can do about this. At a certain point, you will reach the highest possible W/R that you can achieve and unless you are cheating somehow, that limit will not be 100% W/R. And for that, you will obviously blame your teammates. The better you are, the more rage comes with it. And soon stat whores turn into raging idiots which is pretty much obvious when you look at the WoT forum or see good/unicum players raging and whining in chat.

              Most of the good players just can’t accept reality. WoT is not professional sport, there are no requirements to play it. Average players are not particularly bad, it is the opposite, good players take the game more seriously than the average. And the prize for being serious about this game is RAGE and maybe a heart attack if you are lucky. This game is addictive and many of the good players are indeed addicted to it. The sooner they realize it, the better.

              So instead of coming up with things like absolute skill and similar bullshit, maybe you need to look in the mirror and see why are YOU different from the average. Why are you taking the game more seriously, why are you better and most importantly, why are you angry.

            • Actually good players can see the flaws of the others and are blinded by their insight to the reality of what players should know.

              But it is about learning curve more than knowledge… some grasp the facts faster, while others just swirm to understand most basic things which are already learned thousands of battles before.

              Main problem is that the vocal minority is making majority feel bad… and actually they should. Because they refuse to understand that the game is team game and thus fail to understand that their actions do have results. If this was solo game, fine they can have their fun, but in coop efford for the likes of sports… you don’t get to the field if you just watch the birds, right?

              If the game was not team game all rage would cease, but this game is not solo or duo or trio que… If that is your goal bee free to play companies and CW and be as horrible as they can. No one can blame them for being horrible amongst themselves it does not those who want to actually play the game instead of being douches.

              Thus we have not only set grounds for need of participation, but also adaptation to the game to play for the team in a team based game to your potential.

              Now comes the hard part… learning which some do not take lightly, but if some player evidently refuses to play for the team there should be sanctions in most team based games, but WoT has none for this, unless you afk or shoot your own… This is to attract more players, but also if there is no rules or sanctions for passive decline of objective, it gives freedom to choose… and the more you’re given leeway to choose, the more those inclined to cooperate will arouse, which cause rage, not those who actually do try their best.

              There are those who blame others for everything, but there are those who just let it pass. It is up to personality and you currently under Anonymity are cluttering all good players into this ‘Blame everyone’ category.

              So which are you after now?
              1) Numbers pulled from hat
              2) Fact that relatively average is average while absolute tells they are bad
              3) You are raging yourself because others rage?

            • This game may be a team game, but more importantly it is a business. If WG would care about the quality of players, you would have to take tests or finish tutorials to progress in the game and until you learn it, you will not progress. Needless to say that WoT is far from this mentality. What they want is quantity, no matter how bad is the playerbase. Rewards for good players are also not too common, except for a few missions that were added recently, so the motivation to be good is almost nothing.

              Who can be blamed for the frustration. The millions of players for not learning? WG for not setting any standards? Or maybe you for expecting such standards in a free to play game? I wish it would be only WG who can be blamed, but if you think about it realistically, your expectations are just too high.
              Still, I also blame WG for not having enough info in the game, not having tutorials, not motivating players to get better. This is clearly their fault. If you want to see the armor/weakspots of the tanks or gun depression or camo, can you see it in the game? No. You can see almost nothing. You have to hunt for information and look at charts that were made by testers in training room or ripped out from the game files (which is forbidden by EULA btw). This is a complex game (compared to a random FPS) with many info but they really make it hard for the players to find that info. In fact, you can get them only unofficially.

              The reason why I answered to AngryBanana was obviously the noob=>49%. 49% is simply the average and calling average players noobs is plain stupid. The absolute skill thing was just the addition, because it’s just a non-existing undefined gibberish to justify what he said. If I would have to come up with some stupid ratio, I would say

              below 47% = noob/bad
              47-49% = below average
              49% = average
              49-51% = above average
              above 51% = good

              Above this, I don’t bother with very good and unicum and super unicum. If someone hit the average, he can be in my team, he is at least not dragging me down. If he has hit good, then great, even 51+% players are sort of rare in randoms (you can be happy if you have 2 or 3 of them in your team). If he is below the average, well, it sucks.

              Maybe I didn’t set up high standards, but at least it’s realistic and not branding 95% of the playerbase as noobs. And I am not saying that all good players are raging all the time. I almost never rage, probably because I know what to expect when I push the random battle button. But look at the forum and you will see the bad example. It’s almost impossible to avoid raging when you keep losing because you have higher than realistic expectations from random players.

              You just have to deal with it, because the players will not change. Only WG can improve it’s attitude, be mad at them instead. When you click on WoT, you have to keep in mind that it’s a video game, also played by kids who may not even speak English and WoT is not exactly a user-friendly game when it comes to game mechanics and learning. They are not noobs, they are just casual players. You on the other hand visit this blog, the forum, I assume you know the Wiki inside out and gathered additional info from many unofficial sources. You are just too good, that’s all. You take the game seriously, unlike the majority.

              It’s pointless to call them noobs or flame them, it’s not their fault that the game is what it is. WG has designed it this way, WG has set the standards and honestly when you figured out for the first time that you need to take some extra effort to gather some info that you can’t find in the client, you should have suspected that the majority will not do it. You can be glad if they even learn to use the client itself. When you kept playing after that, you have accepted that you will play with a bunch of “noobs”.

              The bottom line is that if you want to rage about below average players, rage. They really drag you down. But you can’t really complain about average players, because they are not a burden for you. Statistically they are just average. When the dice is rolled, you can be actually glad to get an average guy and not a below average guy. And if you can’t play with average guys, all you can do is uninstall the game until you get your skill based MM or keep raging until you get a chat/forum ban.

            • Im not raging about bad players, Im simply stating that I think the avg player sucks. Also, I’d obviously rather have the avg guy on my team than the below avg one.

              You say 49% is avg, I agree, but this average is so easy to achieve that I still think you are a bad player if you can’t get an above average performance. That was all Im saying, but you refuse to see how someone could think this.

              Lets take a class in school as an example, the whole class takes a test and all students failed it, the avg is failing the test, but they still all fail even though they’re average. Their grade is the absolute I was talking about, and no you cant possibly create a rating for that in wot but that is what I meant.

            • You called average players noobs and say they suck. It’s not exactly a compliment.

              And I understand what are you saying. You think the game is easy and average players suck. Well there are millions of them. The problem is that you are unable to tolerate the average players. And this often leads to unnecessary insults and flaming.

              Just start a high tier battle and see how much pathetic whining goes on. Lost! 5% win chance, fucking retard noob team again! x is noob, y is noob, z is noob, uninstall game idiots!!!! GG enemy you win, all idiots are on left!!!!

              It’s really a stupid thing to whine about your team and make them hate you, because I remember that someone was writing not so long ago that this is a team game. So how about making these idiot whiners disappear from the game and only those good players should be left who can motivate the team, or at least shut up and not start the battle with insulting everyone on your side.

              We could start with something simple, like not saying that all average players are noobs and suck, then we can also try something like “hi guys, please win” at the start of the battle instead of “not this fucking stupid team!!! lost again!!!”. Believe me, idiots or not, the first sentence will have better results on the long run than the second. And which is more common? The second by far. You rarely see the first version. So rarely that if you say it, I will even load premium ammo and rape the enemy team to reward you for exceptionally good behavior. Some people know how to gain allies, but on the other hand, some people are good at making enemies out of allies. It’s really up to you to decide where do you belong.

  15. The part “surviving battle” is nonsense and should be removed completely. Why?
    1. It has no meaning to a battle
    2. Surviving a battle is only good, if you do damage and/or win the game. Both already included in formula
    3. Depends on class. SPG will survive more often, Scouts and Meds less. Without telling anything about their influence
    4. Promotes a play style. A defensive player gets better rating than an aggressive one. But both play styles should be treated equally

    So, please vote for removal ;)

    • Sounds like someone who suicided, retard rushed a bit too much. ;-))

      A player surviving more has more chance to influence the outcome of the match.
      Plain and simple.

      • Congrats, you explained and supported my opinion (explained in 2.)
        But you sound a bit, like you are not… strange…
        What about the other points?

  16. Its all bullshit.
    Examples: You love to play Pz.IC with machine gun and had few hundred games with it = no way to get very good hitrate.
    You have to play A-20 or Pz.38nA = your percentage of battles survived and average DMG per battle goes down!
    You decided to play British TDs tier V,VI,VII, or Matilda for long time your percentage of batlles survived goes high to the sky. You can be stupid as hell, you will survive much more often like WOT genius with Pz.38nA.
    Above average player plaing with M4A3E8 cant deal more damage like under average player with KV-1S in tier VII battle.

    What about scouting??? Why it doesnt count in rating?
    And clan games? When you play organized with band of friends comunicating with teamspeak etc.. you have much bigger chance do play well than in random battles….
    I think its completely unfair.

    • My pzIc still has a 70% winrate, that compensate for the lower accuracy well enough methinks

      • Do you know, what does it mean “example” mr WOTtalent? I just wanted to mention that there are so many other values inflienting your performance in this game… i used just few examples.
        Clan games – random games ratio
        Platoon – lone ranger ratio
        Damage by spotting
        Average tier played (important mainly for average dmg = no problem 3000 battle DMG with Ferdi. Try to do it regularly in tier II, where tanks have 100-200HP)
        + count some random circumstances and just luck…

      • When you are grinding just one part of tree.. Playing with some stock tier VIII or IX can hurt your stats too.

        • *Anything* can hurt your stats. Good players somehow manage to get good ones regardless.

          BTW the grind for the next-tier tank with de facto elite kit is much longer than the stock grind anyway…

    • Somebody seems to have forgotten that realistically a rather large number of battles in any given tank is required for the metrics produced to amount to more than a rounding error in the final score… just like the winrate deniers, coincidentially enough.

      Fact: low-tier grinds take few dozen battles AT MOST to clear. That’s a fart in the statistical desert.

      • You are an ignorant, Sir. Many people find lower tier more pleasure to play than higher tier. I cca 80% off all tanks tier I-V and i kept many of them for very long time… for all i can mention Hetzer, so my Hetzer play is very influent on my stats… and with its armor and gun it doesnt need much skill to have good survival ratio. From the other hand, i played much more lower tier tanks than top tiers… i picked just few high tiers i like and dont want to grind others.

        I try to explain my toughts this way:
        I will make two idendical clons of mr WOT-talented angrybanana. Put them both in front of PCs. One will get Type59, Premium account and bunch of GOLDs for converting free XP and clan of pros to play with.. Second will just play WOT regularly with tier I ..then II and so…he will play randoms with noobs.. Dont say me, that their stats will be same!!!!! Its impossible… So what i say..There are many many values influenting everyones performance in the WOT.

        • Ahem.
          Quote, “You have to play A-20 or Pz.38nA = your percentage of battles survived and average DMG per battle goes down!”, unquote.

          How terrible if sealclubban at the low tiers for shits & giggles doesn’t give you unicum stats.

          • Read second paragraph of my topic once again please. If it couldnt help, brag about it, not everybody is supposed to understand more complex things :)

            • Doesn’t seem to have any relevance to the inane whine about *obligatory* low-tier grinds I criticised.

              Moreover, look up “statistical significance” please.

              By the by, care to name one rating that *isn’t* ‘all bullshit’ and ‘completely unfair’ by your criteria?

          • Who sealclubs in a Panzer 38nA or an A-20!? Those are SCOUT tanks, and not particularly good ones at that (the A-20 can perform well as a Scout, but the Panzer 38nA’s combination of low mobility and poor camo makes it a very poor scout. It should just get regular tier 4 matchmaking imho…although I DID manage to fight a T32 one on one and killed it in a Panzer 38nA back in patch 7.5)

            • I know people who’d disagree with you about the 38NA, but more to the point – py more attention to the discussion.

  17. I’m glad they toned done accuracy as there’s no reason you should be penalised for firing a dozen long range shots at a target behing some hardcover in the hope of pinging him with one. the rest of it is ok, they seem to have set the ranges a bit better in the new verison.

  18. All of the rating systems are utter crap as long as the game is not balanced. For example MM allows battles where the platoon numbers are not balanced. You can have battles where one team has a platoon, the other one doesn’t. How often? Maybe just in 5% of your battles, but in those battles, you have an unfair advantage over the enemy, thanks to MM rules that are not strict enough.

    The whole game is plain shit and unbalanced if you look at the details.

    • The whole game is plain shit and unbalanced if you look at the details.

      Go play Warthunder. Then we’ll talk about balance. And you’ll definitly will want to talk about PAIN.

      • I didn’t say that other games are more balanced. This is not changing the fact that this game is not balanced either. I can’t take these statistics seriously, because WoT has started as a casual game with no plans for e-sport and thus the balancing and statistics are flawed. They still left out damage upon assistance, max and average exp is including premium (on your profile) and they had to start gathering the exp data from scratch from 8.8. And the balancing is also bad, no separate statistics for platoons, no strict MM rules to guarantee fairplay, small pay2win elements in the game left and right, all of these are influencing the statistics.

        It’s a waste of time to take it seriously. It’s just a show for the less educated folks who are not aware of the flaws of the system.

      • Or I can just play for fun, not giving a shit about the flawed statistics. Because you know, there is also a game about tanks here, not just about statistics.

        Still, nice to see that you have no arguments and the truth hurts too much.

        • Was primarily referring to the “The whole game is plain shit and unbalanced if you look at the details.” part you know.

          • That’s my bad, I was referring to stats, balance and competitive gameplay.

            For a casual game, it’s fun. But you can’t make a competitive game out of a casual game halfway. The game is hiding or not even storing many relevant statistics, as it has happened with the experience. WoT has clearly started more as a casual game, with more pay2win elements, now they have reduced the pay2win elements and excluded premium bonus etc, but the damage is done already.

  19. what WG should do is categorize skill rating (if not by tier tanks) then by tiers i.e Junior Block Middle Block and High End block (1-4, 4-8, 8-10) this way we could identify if where they are best at. Some guys are just damn good at high tier but suck in mid or low tier but some guys are good at every tier.

    • I’m having serious problems wrapping my head around “Some guys are just damn good at high tier but suck in mid or low tier”, please elaborate.

      • The reason why that could happen is that at higher tiers, the players are generally better…which also makes them more predictable, which is especially beneficial if you primarily play as a sniper in a tank destroyer.

        At lower tiers, the players are overall less experienced, which means there’s a greater degree of randomness to their decisions, so tactics that WOULD work in high tiers, like overwatch at a certain chokepoint, won’t work because the enemy team might just yolo-rush across open ground before you have a chance to counter them, and by the time you’ve managed to react, half your team is dead and maybe only two of theirs are dead.

        • Sucking ass when you’re a newbie is the default assumption, that was neither the point nor going to matter much in the long run as the amount of matches at the higher tiers by necessity soon vastly outnumbers the early-grind low-tier ones.

  20. As other can say before I, Wargaming seems to be seeking a player rating which is both comparative & absolute at the same time, this is problematic. The total lack taking into account of tier spread makes its efforts worthless as a measuring tool. Still don’t see spotting damage or damage assistance in Wargaming formula. Not to mention the hit ratio compound is subject to skewing if one’s played a good amount of auto-cannon vehicles previously. Quite common to see stark hit ratios for different gun and vehicles types, but what matters is how one’s doing within a tier of play relative to one’s peers.

    • If you care so much about WG rating (why would you?) don’t exclusively play auto-cannons.
      Nobody is forcing you to play such tanks.

    • They are still learning after 2 years they noticed that their first rating was bad to begin with. Let them evolve for 2 more years… ( They never touched the first rating before this new… so it is kind of record fast action in comparison to the norm! :D ),

  21. Nice to see that playing light tanks will lower your score as scouting, seems to mean nothing.

    • Yeah, they seriously haven’t figured out yet that Scouts are not SUPPOSED to be shooting at things unless some idiot’s facing the other way or the vehicle in question is an SPG.

  23. For those who are stating that it is almost impossible to influence (every) T9 battles… Well just let me play my trusty JagdTiger and with (below) average team players I will cripple up to half of the enemy team. So there is enough influence to tip the scales in our favor, of course, winning should come easily but sometimes there is always a donkey going Rambo, not being able to shoot on a target, not being able to cap or to proper spot. And I am not a unicum, close but not yet.

    • Same here, but even a Unicum would be hard-pressed to make up for a team of 14 idiots unless the other team is equally as stupid…but then again, that’s usually how people earn the Rasennai’s Heroes Medal (kill at LEAST 14 out of the 15 enemy tanks you’re up against – very rare that anyone gets one, but the replays of those battles are just AMAZING).

  24. The only thing that the formula could have in it that it doesn’t is spotting damage. Otherwise, players that primarily play light tanks as scouts will get shafted by the rating system (like they were under pretty much every other rating system).

  25. Why wouldn’t a functional relationship between average xp, win rate and level played be a perfect metric for skill.

    Each tier an average player is expected to gain **** xp per win and ****xp per loss.

    If you on average gain more xp per win and/or more xp per loss you are above average. xp is supposed to take into account damage/scouting/surviving etc on a scale which WG has already deemed “fair”…. or is supposed to.