Source: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/995453-
New 8.8 personal rating is a complex index of player’s combat efficiency, based on six parameters:
- average experience (without PA bonus)
- average damage dealt per battle
- amount of battles played
- winrate
- winrate in battles where the player survived
- hit rate
In order to make the rating system more fair, average experience per battle will be calculated freshly from the point of 8.8 going live (new system introduction). Player experience, gained before 8.8, will not be taken into account.
The new system has following advantages:
- more objectivity: only pure XP gained will be taken into account, without PA or event/special bonuses
- not only player’s skill, but also player’s experience (archieved by the amount of battles) will be taken into account
- new accounts opened only for statpadding/twinking will never have good rating, because they will have low battle amount. This urges players to develop their main account and helps to fight twinks/sealclubbers/pedobears
- the rating is based on internal WG data, which guarantees the rating accuracy and makes it impossible to “fix” it (the way 3rd party can)
The rating formula is as follows:
bc – “BattlesCount” (amount of battles played)
win – winrate (a number from 0-1 interval: 55 percent equals to 0,55)
surv – winrate in battles you survived (a number from 0-1 interval)
hit – hitrate (0-1 interval)
xp – average experience
dmg – average damage dealt
More accurate formula will be introduced in 8.9, it will take into account the changes coming in 8.9
WN7 still better.
WN7 does not take into account scout gameplay, so it can’t be.
WN8 then? (wish they make that one)
They are making WN8, but they cannot take into account scout gameplay since it isn’t available to them, neither is average exp (without modifiers) – which is what makes this metric take into account scout gameplay.
Why cant they just add spotted targets and damage?
(nobody cares about scouts :D)
These data are not available from any public API, a few are not even written to the local dossier files.
Conversation heard between Igor the DBA and Pavel during spring 2010
Pavel : tell me Igor in which column the spotting damages should be stored ?
Igor : it was in the specifications ?
Pavel : certainly
Igor : crap !
Pavel : crap !
SerB: How terrible !
WN7 does the best it can with the data available.
It incorporates an iterative process of development, takes tier into account, and doesn’t include things like hit rate and battle count, which do not correlate to win rate at all.
Still, I appreciate them publishing the formula. It would be meaningless if not for that.
But this formula is pretty bad, some what worse even then the original efficiency rating and that says a lot. Number of battles is valued highly as is surviving while winning is not worth much at all. This looks like someone who doesn’t know math just made a random formula that looks good and complicated.
The effect of good scout on all maps on average is rather small anyways so if wn7 gives less rating for scout players then that is just true about how dangerous a good scout is compared to good heavy/med/td. A good medium tank driver can effect the battles for 2400wn of worth but a scout can only have 1800wn worth because scout is overall just less useful.
You don’t need to take my word for it. Just look at noobmeter tank stats and notice how scout light tanks have smaller op rating regardless of tier. If wn is supposed to show how dangerous player someone is then it only makes perfect sense that your wn goes down the more scout tanks you play simply because scouts DO have smaller effect on the match than other tanks types.
What are you smoking? I want some… A good scout can and does make or break a game, you know those games where your team just collapses without seeing the enemy? Thats a good scout, not just noobs.
Just like WN, noobmeter OP ratings don’t consider scouts either.
But this system doesn’t help scouts either. See the average damage with no average tier? That means scouts will not be represented. The solution is to publish the correct information in the Api.
But this takes into account number of battles and average damage without taking tier into account so it’s dead before it’s released. It’s just another method to get players to play higher tiers. Higher tiers means more money for wg. This system will be ignored by anyone with half a brain.
Amount of battles played parameter makes the rating system next to worthless.
Also WR – why is it even there……
Why wouldn’t Win Rate be there?
Winrate in pub matches is next to meaningless compared to efficiency.
The objective of a battle is to win so WR should be in there.
It might be the objective, but whether or not it is achieved has little to do with an individuals skill. One can not win a reasonable battle alone, therefore their winrate is not an accurate representation of their skill. Damage done during the battle is far more accurate and kills to a far lesser degree. This is accepted as fact by most skilled players who indulge in pub matches.
A player’s skill does influence their W/R. Take a look at the challenges unicums often took. So many games in a certain tank, no platooning, limited gold rounds, etc. They still pulled a great win rate out of it, because they were good and could influence the match.
Why? Everyone gets random battles, and statistically, over a large number of battles, everyone should have the same win rate if they performed the exact same way. It all comes down to the player.
Sure, you can pad it by platooning with other good players (you have to be good, and so do your platoon mates if you want this to work), but every other stat can be padded as well.
How do you pad damage and kills. Idiotic statement. The guys with the high win rates are the ones that platoon with good clan teammates and play clan wars in a good clan exclusively. Try to find a pub player without a clan that has over a 56% win rate.
Without clan 64% win rate player here…:P
Couldn’t agrre more! WR it?s absurd. Winning or loosing (unless you’re in a team or platoon) doesn’t depends on your skill. I’m playing this game for almost 2 years, and now I’m giving up because of that absurd WR. I lready tried, in a game, just dont do anything, and many times I win, when in other situations where I destroy like 5 ennemy tanks, I lose! It’s supposed to be a team game, but never is! How often do you meet guys in your team, drunked, or under drugs, that they just go there to destroy everyone elses game?
So you are saying that you have seen people with unicrum efficiency and sub 45% win rate to show that being good doesn’t raise your win rate?
Sorry but you can be bad and have a bad win rate. You can be bad and have a average(around 50%) win rate. You can be good and have a good or great win rate.
But you will never find a good player who has a bad win rate.
Have you played Wot before?
Not true.
Ever seen a player with a WN7 of 1800 and a Winrate of 49%?
Oh well, that’s me, enjoy.
Because you can win with being afk for most of the match.
Because you can lose even if you score 14 kills.
Do the experiment and tell us how it went.
Dont tell me what to do.
You’re too touchy. It’s a freaking video game.
So Im freaking out :D
Come back after 5k battles of doing that, at tell me how your winrate should be 50%+, while it will be ~43%.
Statically, in the long run, you are the only variable in the equation.
If you get 14 kills in a match, I would say there is a 99 percent chance of winning that match. Afkers I have seen in game almost always have terrible win rates.
If you are thinking killing 9-12 people of the enemy team will guarantee you a win,
YOU GONNA HAVE A BAD TIME.
Most people don’t even achieve 14 kills. 9-12 are more realistic.
Yep i’ve lost a dozen games with 9 kills and even 1 with 12, so now eat it.
“Because you can win with being afk for most of the match.”
you can, but it is more likely that you will lose because you are guaranteeing that your team is at least one tank down, where-as the other team has the potential to get a full team . this means that in the long run you will have a bad winrate.
people who claim that winrate isn’t a useful statistic either don’t understand that doing well causes you to win (the desired outcome of a battle), or they just failed statistics class.
Spot on. I would add from myself that they are losers in game and losers in real life as well. I can not understand how people can’ t grasp so simple things. Maybe basic education is not compulsory in some places?
Winning chance while afk is about 40-45%, so while being afk you will win at least 40 games out of 100 in a long run. So nothing unusual if you win. How some people fail to understand it, is beyond me.
So much this. It’s gotten to the point I’m so exasperated by the fools that try and belittle W/R as a player skill representation that its devolved into humor. I have to laugh or I will just cry.
Honestly, everyone making this argument really are just screaming “I failed Stats!” at the top of their lungs.
Here’s a hint for them: Learn about outlier data points before you post a “But I kilt 30 guiz in 1 fite and lose!” response. Here I’ll even help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
Technically, you can win real wars by being ‘afk’ most the war. Remember, 99% boredom, 1% sheer terror. As long as you’re there for that 1%, you’re there for all that matters :p
WR is a good proxy for un-measurable stuff.
Many good players leave the battle they are engaged in early, which probably lowers their potential damage to flex to critical sides. Leaving a won battle to win the game is rewarded by adding WR.
It prevents stat padding with new accounts and small number of battles. I don’t have a problem with it.
Worst thing is the win rate in survived battles ? So if I go scout, get 8-9 enemy tanks killed in the progress and get killed, It’s worth jack shit even thou it won the round for the team ?
I’m terrible at statistics, but it looks as if survived battles plays a very insignificant role over other variables. It is important though, it looks as if this will be a good indicator as to whether people are being carried in platoons.
Remember surviving is as important as killing off the enemy.
In my experience survival rate matters the most, the more mobility you have. A medium benefits a lot from surviving until the end – a light more so. On the other hand, surviving until the end is easier on a TD but TDs are bad in low tank count situations because you only need one enemy medium to flank you and kill you.
Survivng is the most important factor for pading your personal stats, but that does not mean it’s the most important one for winning games. Games are often lost because none want to risk their tanks to do what is needed.
Threads like this bring on bits of laughter, I love it. People that complain about win rate do do because theirs is low, understandable. Solo I average a 60% while in a clan plat it’s about 80%. So while working with players over a ts aid in winning its not a do or die method.
I’m unsure if the important statistic in that Formula is [% of wins that you survived] or [% of survived games that you won] aka “Death or Glory Factor”.
The later would be padable by suicide in the face of defeat.
I laugh at people that say you can’t skew results with the right tank.
http://tinyurl.com/orzymbh
I don’t really care about in-game stats. Its a game. Most of us just want to enjoy it.
Those of you that absolutely MUST compare e-peens, please don’t do it in open chat during a battle, Its really boring.
Average tier should be brought into consideration
Looks fine to me.
THAT. WIthout average tier one can do mediocre in high tier battles and still have better rating than a player owning on mid tiers.
Doesn’t average xp take care of this?
A tier 8 doing 1k damage earns little compared to a tier 6 doing the same.
Bullshit. Higher tier tanks get more exp in most cases.
Given tankers of equal skill, the higher tier tank will likely get more XP.
In my experience, however, higher tier tanks don’t always get more XP. For instance, if a Tier 7 tank does 1000 points of damage to Tier 8 tanks, he will get more XP than a Tier 8 tank doing 1000 points of damage to Tier 7 tanks.
Higher tiers are rewarded with this formula in several ways.
– better hit rates (better accuracy and no miniguns)
– more XP (than going seal clubbing)
– more damage than lower tiers.
– likely to have a better survival rate as well.
>if a Tier 7 tank does 1000 points of damage to Tier 8 tanks, he will get more XP than a Tier 8 tank doing 1000 points of damage to Tier 7 tanks.
And rightly so. I don’t see the problem here.
Nobody is saying it’s a problem. Please read the messages before you post.
No. Then my rating would go down.
- new accounts opened only for statpadding/twinking will never have good rating, because they will have low battle amount. This urges players to develop their main account and helps to fight twinks/sealclubbers/pedobears
So the goal here is to punish people they don’t like, not to accurately display their skill. Got it.
Well their goal is to make noobs look like they have good stats and performance….
That is what 60 day stats are for. And either way clans won’t take WG stats into account they will still go off of your Efficiency, WN7, Win Rate
I don’t get the argument of “fighting” new accounts. If a skilled player wants to open a new account (many of those I know do it because they want a better WN7-rating), why would he not do it? Granted, the WG-rating would look like shit, but it would be awesome to be able to drive under the radar, without the enemy tanks expecting you to play well.
Your answer is in the EULA, part 9 section A:
“Each Player can have only one registration Account.”
Nuff said.
I believe it was changed around March 2013 to aloow users to have second accounts, at least I don’t infer a prohibition from the section you mentioned:
“A. Registration
In order to take part in the World of Tanks MMO Game, participants (“Players”) must be 13 years of age or older. Players are solely responsible for their behavior in both public and battle chat. Players are responsible for protecting their Accounts from access by others. You are strongly encouraged to select a hard-to-guess password and not re-use that password on any other sites where it may be read by the owners or administrators of that site. It is highly recommended that board users do not share their Accounts with others, nor share their computers used to access the site with others. In case your Account has been lost or hacked, please, inform the WN administration (hereinafter referred to as Administration) immediately.
Please report any bugs and errors related to registration to WN’s Technical Support Service.”
In any case – I’m pretty sure that second acount players don’t mind faling under the radar for those who use the WG-rating, and for the WN7 guys… well, we al know those “1k battles 2104WN7″ ;)
Well, I cited the NA EULA, didn’t think it can be different o.O
“A. Registration
In order to take part in the World of Tanks MMO Game, participants (“Players”) must be 13 years of age or older. Each Player can have only one registration Account. Players are solely responsible for their behavior in both public and battle chat. Players are responsible for protecting their Accounts from access by others. You are strongly encouraged to select a hard-to-guess password and not re-use that password on any other sites where it may be read by the owners or administrators of that site. It is highly recommended that board users do not share their Accounts with others, nor share their computers used to access the site with others. In case your Account has been lost or hacked, please, inform the WN Administration (hereinafter referred to as Administration) immediately.”
“Accounts” could refer to WoT and WoWP prior to Unified accounts. When was the EULA updated? As any WG staff will probably still say that you cannot have more than one account per person, from what I see in general chat from time-to-time.
Now that’s interesting. Good to know that you the EULAs are indeed different for EU and NA. I’d really like to know why ;)
Omg, EvilJoe (over 90k battles) will have amazing stats :D
SS i have something to tell you, you might want to sit down
its achieved not archieved :3
How terrible…
+1
Troll attack successfull :p
Stupid spellczech…
DM
average damaged deal must be calculated according with the vehicle tier. How the fuck I am going to have more than 1700 average playing with my low tier tanks?, it is impossible, so my rating will decay.
It will benefit high tier tanks. Correct way of thinking imho.
Why? Play foch 155, do an average of 2.5k dmg (this is the actual average across all foch 155 players, so you don’t need to be particularly good) or play a tier 5 Churchill and do 1.5k dmg. Churchill took more skill to get that much damage done, but is rewarded less than the foch 155 is its WPR.
I totally agree. The system is stilted towards those with the time and money to get into high tiers quickly or already have high tiers.
Better than awarding pedobears.
No, its not.
This will benefit current players with high tier and high damage tanks….
any new players will suffer badly from it, no matter how good they are…
All Stats Are Meaningless™
Essentially.
Any stat in isolation is indeed meaningless, however if you take them in combination you start getting a pretty good picture of someones ability and I look forward to seeing how this enhances our view of a players ability when viewing in conjunction with WN7, efficiency, winrate etc.
I just need to find out how to maintain a nice low profile rating while winning a lot…………….
Overcomplicated.
I think NoobMeter.com ‘s Performance Rating is simple to understand and works best:
http://blog.noobmeter.com/2013/07/noobmeter-performance-rating-algorithm.html
wtf is “Twinking”..??
Or will I regret asking that… :P
Pick an OP tank, and bling it out with everything you can fit on it. Buy a Pz B2, install a 5-skill crew, a full load of gold, vents, binoculars, and optics. Go nuts slaughtering LTPs by the dozens.
Twinking (smurfing in CoH speak, etc.) means deliberately making a new account after having trained up your skills on a previous account then going seal clubbing (or higher tier, if you are pro) in the most effective tank(s) you have found. This means your stats aren’t dragged down from your newbie games or failing when trying out different tanks.
And again – no DAMAGE upon DETECTION included in rating – can anybody do something with this? This is encouraging to be camping on hills behind bushes, not playin in action with mediums and lights.
I hope one day
don’t think so:
surv – winrate in battles you survived
battles that you survived but lost/drew will work against you as far as i understand -
camping or idleing will get punished while agressive players receive a bonus
It’s based on the XP, and the XP does include everything you do in the battles – including spotting damage.
This rating is completely useless because it takes the amount of battles played and the hitratio into account …. Two things which do not influence the skill of a player by any means…
I don’t think so.
The more you played the more you earn xp and skills and as SS said : “new accounts opened only for statpadding/twinking will never have good rating”.
For hitratio it’s really good. If you shoot like Syrian-rebel or whatever (see videos he posted yesterdays ;) ) you’re not really good…
At least that’s what I think.
Hit ratio is a stupid thing to measure someones skill by. Who is more skilled in this scenario?
An enemy tank hiding behind a building. Player A sits there camping waiting ages for the enemy to show his tank. Player B instead of waiting shoots the destructible building exposing the enemy for him and his team to shoot but at the same time impacting his hit ratio negatively….
If they differentiated by tank class it would make more sense (still useless for the rating IMO). Arties, just saying…
That’s the problem yeah. But well, you need to shoot when you’re truly sure it’ll hit. Though I understand it’s hard for arties.
Again, I think it’s useful. And it’s not really very important in the formula ;)
I’m just gonna believe you, since I’m not sure how that “max(…)” is calculated :)
However, arty players are still worse off in the WG rating, since it’s more difficult to influence WR in arty, and the survival rate and average xp is much lower than in other tank classes. But maybe that’s the point – WG wants players to move away from arty! Conspiracy!
the max (0, xp -160) means you’re using whichever is higher, 0 or average xp -160. So if you have 159 average XP, you’re using 0 instead of -1.
Totally agree with you (definitely about accuracy -wtf). The best thing here is that average xp is without modifiers. otherwise – a crappy formula. If spotting/assistance damage and scouted tanks is not present, well – pretty much useless…
Yes i am allways missing spotted dmg…
>If spotting/assistance damage and scouted tanks is not present, well – pretty much useless…
As BoMbY said “It’s based on the XP, and the XP does include everything you do in the battles – including spotting damage.”
But that makes it the only good thing with this formula. It pretty much sux else. Number of battles and suviving is the top most important things to get a good score. Winning is almost worth nothing.
Actually I dont care about that. I am still going to play those tanks which I like even if my eff goes lower. Since I dont care joining any clans, I doubt anyone should ever care how good eff I have.
That’s the spirit bro! I really hate people when they are in battle saying “we’ll lose because of shit winrate” or “suddup you low rated”.
Anyway I might only be naïve but I like playing, not trying to be a pro’. Thay said that but I think they can’t even kill 1 tank during a battle against Virtus (for example).
>inb4 you have low rate that’s why you said that.
My winrate efficiency are on the verge of good, but still at about high-above average and I have to say I completely agree with you. The efficiency elitism in this game is remarkable. I remember when video games were about fun…
inb4 “Winning is fun” – Sad, strange little man.
Same for me. I find it really sad. And other Winrate show some penalties if you played with lowtier.
>implying playing with T2 isn’t fun.
They aren’t pro gamer and they won’t be (in the majority) so they think with good stats they are great.
Players who just started the game won’t care about their rating, in fact I didn’t know about any such thing until I had about 3k battles. The penalties for low tier are for the players who have like 15k battles, earn enough money for equipent and gold shells and have crews with 4 skills and STILL choose to kill noobs in tier 2 battles. There are guys who have 2000 battles in the T18, because it’s a great tank for noob bashing. They get 10 kills and 1500dmg, but the won’t get a good rating because of the penalties involved. It’s a small gratification, but at least there is one ;)
Oh ok. Didn’t know about that.
Yeah of course they don’t care, but “older” player care (some, not all hopefully) too much about that, IMO.
I have see some good player playing bad, and bad playing good. Well, it was only during a few time when I tested some mods (I don’t like this kind of mods).
Why did they publish their rating formula? They said it’s top secret and they will never ever tell us.
Now that we see it, most of us probably agree that it sucks just as hard as the current useless stats such as Global Rating and Battles Participated and the other similar sort of crap. This rating system is so useless and stupid that I will not even take the time to point out all of it’s flaws. Hit ratio? Number of battles? Average damage but no spotting damage? It’s just utter crap.
Actually, the formula doesn’t look so stupid to me. And again: XP does include everything, including spotting damage. It’s just weighted a little bit more on damage.
Yeah, sure, XP includes everything. Maybe read the comments that were posted before you and then you will see why is this rating system a piece of shit. It is so biased, that it is plain useless.
Yes, it is good, but it does include number of battles. I have aprox. 3,9k battles and 1600+ WN, but I am not “twinks/sealclubbers/pedobears”. So with this WG rating i have one of lowest WG ratings in my clan, while I have 16th highest WN7 rating in my clan…
Will they actually do something with that rating or is it purely cosmetic?
They’re messing with the WN7 formula, turning it into the WN8 because the creators and their friends are finding out that “normal” players are able to put up a fight rating wise, and thus they need to separate themselves somehow to pat each other on the back and maintain their epeen size. It doesn’t impact me, my stats will continue to put me deep into purple, I’m just calling it as it is, and why these people are doing this.
More people will start to go by the WG rating though, since it’s baked in. Like how Gearscore became irrelevant in WoW.
Gearscore was so completely relevant, WoW copied it, and made it into ilevel requirements to get into 5 mans and lfr. Once WoW intoduced their own version of Gearscore (which was nowhere near as good) most players stopped using it.
Day-to-day winrate for a solo pubbie is a crap shoot. One day you’re running with some decent teams and winning more than losing. The next day – You can’t buy a win.
- hitratio
cool, take Pz1c -> blow 1000 bullets into a kv -> profit
This! You just go in point blank range spam low tier fast autoloaders and thats it.
Aint battle count a quantitative measurment? Shouldnt we choose only qualitative measurments?
Well, WG`s policy : quantity over quality.
No, you’re using the words wrong. http://regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/ad1/qualquant.htm
But I think everyone gets your point. IE battle count has nothing to do with skill.
In order to make the rating system more fair, average experience per battle will be calculated freshly from the point of 8.8 going live (new system introduction).
ok this is bs…
Not really. The system as a whole still looks pretty bad though.
Why aren’t they separating Company/CW/Platoon WR out of this? An above average player can easily be carried into a unicum rating.
If they’d just publish this shit, we could figure this stuff out ourselves.
Win rate hardly matters at all in this formula, so separating it wont do anything.
There is only one metric that matter.
Damage.
Everything else is fluff and bunnies.
Unless you’re in a scout…
Or an agro-drawing medium/heavy
In other words… the main reason nobody but you uses just damage as an indicator.
So much butthurt over this formula. From what I could understand, the bc variable is there to punish low battles high xp accounts. Anybody with less than 4500 battles will get hit negatively. The WR I don’t get it since it seems that anybody with above average WR will get hit negatively: (0.5 – WR)/0.03 will get you a negative exponent if WR is above 0.5.
I have forgotten a lot of my Statistics classes.
Win rate does help, it gets into a negaive exponent. The problem is that no matter how much you win so can you at most get a 3000 (before the BC component multiple) while 1% survival rate is worth 7000. Ie, going from 10% win rate to 100% win rate is worth less then going from 10% survival rate to 10.5% survival rate.
Perhaps because it takes more skill to survive a battle than deal huge amounts of damage or even be part of the winning team. So they are giving more weight to be able to survive a battle, even a lost one, than to be in the winning team.
WinRate Formula top value is 3000
Survival rate is not worth 7000. the formula says that Survival rate is 7000 x the max number between 0 and the SR – 0.2. With SR being capped at 1 that means that the top value this formula will bring is 7000 x 0.8 = 5600.
Hit rate is 6000 x the max number between 0 and HR – 0.45, With HR capped at 1 the top value is 6000 x 0.55 = 3300
So you get 3000 + 5600 + 3300 = 11900 plus the 8.8 BC * SR* HR modifier + Damage as Top value.
That still makes survival rate more important for points then win rate, wich is daft.
looks like my habit of blind firing on campy maps will cost me a hit to the rating as well as credits for the shells. not going to stop me from doing it at any rate.
any rating that takes total games played or hitrate into account is a fail rating
Personally I believe that hit rate coupled with damage gives a better account of your skills. Hit rate by itself means nothing but with damage it tells how accurate are your shots and how damaging they are.
If you only use damage, it tells you how much damage you do in the battle. Even if you spam shells and miss twice as much, if you do the same amount of damage, then you have contributed the same amount to your teams.
Damage done is not a good indicator of skill without some sort of handicap for playing tanks that do not have the ability to do significant damage per shot. It promotes the players who play heavy tanks/tank destroyers and demotes those that play the light & medium tanks, which have smaller guns. Also, those who play high tiers with heavy tanks and tank destroyers have a marked advantage.
I played my first 8,000 games with very little use of heavy tanks or tank destroyers. And, I played mainly low tiers (5 and less) due to a poor computer (10-to-15 fps). Since I got a new computer (50+ fps) and have started playing heavy tanks more often, I have seen my damage dealt go up significantly. However, I got a tier X medium and see that my damage still does not compete with the big boys; so, I have put it on hold as I work up the heavy line.
According to the various ratings, I am getting better. But, how much of it is playing tanks that deal more damage versus my improvement in playing. I now decided whether I had a good game or not by whether my damage dealt exceeds my hit points for the vehicle I am in; and, whether or not I got a kill. Those combined decide it for me.
Since they take the damage rate without counting on the average tier I won’t give a fuck about their rating.
And they said the rating won’t take into account the influence of the premium account…how that comes?…
Because in this context tier is irrelevant. You are either a good tank player with a Tier-1 or a Tier-10, or you are a shitty player no matter how many Tier-10 tanks you have.
Ability is not tied to the tank you are driving but to how you are driving said tanks. Somebody who is a unicum in heavies may be a noob in lights and that is detrimental in the overall skill rating. The best tanker is the one who can drive ALL type of vehicles regardless of tier and win.
wrong, a lethal tier 1 player will always have shittier “rating” than a wallet noob full of tier 10s
And it’s not only the case for tier 1, but to middle tiers too.Having a 1k dpg in, say, tier 5 tanks is something epic while having that dpg in tier 10s is average…or even noobish.Still, the one with tier 10s averaging 1k dpg will be on avantage.
A unicum heavy player that is a noob on light tanks won’t play light tanks.
Also, again, their rating, taking over the fact that tiers aren’t taken into account, is based on hit ratio too.So your argument that a really unicum player should be able to drive perfectly all tank types, even if it’s true, it’s bullshit according to their rating.
you do realise this formula is bullshit?
the number of battles part is ok – it makes you play 25k battles to reach full potential (more then that doesnt really matter) and like 3k battles after 8.8 to fully use average experience
win ratio matters mostly around 50% – here 1% of wr is worth 3.5% of survive rate and 4% of hit rate.
but around 60 (or 40) WR changes stop being important.
But what does makes no sense at all is:
1. no tiers taken into account. PLaying anything below tier 10 is waste of stats
2. hit ratio? so don’t play arty and never play t2 light or Pz IC
3. survival rate into the ranking? let me think – what makes a lot of damage unspotted and with good hit ratio?
So this is the rating to satisfy people who like to play tier 10 TDs. Because there’s not enough of them yet
tbh if I see 2 players with similar stat but differing with survival rate, then i prefer the one with lower SR – cause he has the same impact in shorter time and in most cases – is brawling on the front line insted of being parasite at the back.
WG thinks otherwise
The number of battles is to take care of the seal clubbers. Skill is irrelevant of Tier or Tank type. Besides Basix XP earned (without Premium Account bias) already takes into account the Tier and a lot of other variables that you may think off.
Damage rate without counting on the average tier, seriously?
Hit rate is useless for arty players they hit less often as tanks do. And people who like to clear buildings with fast rof guns like me. Eff, WN7 and PR are better than this.
Ofc premium accounts have advantage with practically less stock time and faster crew training.
I think they had a monkey faceroll on the keyboard and this is what they ended up with. Despite having access to more info then other ratings so is it much worse then any of them. It’s about as good as their current web page rating.
Why are those stupid stats that important to you?
Do you need stats to tell you that you are a good player? Because if so i can tell you that your not a good player
I think its good that statpadders dont get rewarded for getting as fast as possible to hetzer at tier 4 and then crushing everything with 105 derb
Still if your driving only in platoon with good clanmates you will have 60% winrate no problem …but the only way to stop that is to stop platoons altogether.
WN8 will be exceedingly more accurate than this crummy rating. Even WN7 as it is now is much better than the WG rating (which, by the way, is HEAVILY biased towards number of battles), but the quality of the WN8 rating >>>>>>> WN7. I know this because I sort of commandeered the project and pushed it in a completely different direction. :)
Basically, when WN8 is released, if people say any other current rating system is better, they are wrong. In fact, by the very nature of its development, it will hang around for quite a while. :)
Maybe that was the previous version of the WG rating, but still, we know how effective their previous rating was.
Well, WN8 will punish seal-clubbers which is good.Not fully punish them, but handicap them in order to prevent them look good.
Ofc, since it removes the stats of 3 most played tier 1-3 tanks, the seal clubbers would be able to pick other tanks to pad with,but still they won’t be as good.
It won’t. It will simply be harder for them to get a good score. The WN8 to which you are referring was the previous version.
Also, the WN8 I proposed is massively better than the previous one. I’m actually kind of proud. :)
it’s still on the WN8 development main page?
Might take a look.
(And yeah, didn’t checked the page again since 1 month or something…was convinced that it’ll stay as it was, neverwish’s main problem was to find the right formula for it)
The work is going on in the WoTLabs forum. Shouldn’t be too hard to find, but I should also tell you that if you are interested in stats, an even better rating is also in development, but only works with dossier files and cannot be calculated from the information provided in WG’s API. When it’s done, we’ll try to have it implemented in WoT Statistics and vbaddict.net.
Personally, i really don’t like the hit ratio being taken into account, ’cause i, as many other players, like to take one in hundred shots. Or take blind shots where the enemy was spotted. And if we wanna do this, its gonna lower our “personal rating”, huh? Well, it’s not something im gonna use to measure players skills then.
Also look at arty players and light tank players, why would they suffer?.
Know what..? In my opinion the essential goal of playing WoT should be, above all, having fun, not grinding stats. I got about ~1700 WN7, and 54% WR just by playing the way I like it, not by adjusting my playstyle to the way the WG wants me to do. As long as I just play my way, the game is enjoyable, and that’s the point. It’s really funny when some of you say that this or that rating system will hurt or promote some players. Not true. Nerfing your favourite tanks does, but not some numbers in your player’s panel. Nothing can change your skills just by measuring and displaying them in the way WG got to it. To the point though. When you play just for fun, or for expanding your collection of tier X tanks (for clan wars, or just for yourself), or maybe to improve your skills, player rating won’t change a thing, no matter how it will be calculated. It just doesn’t influence a single thing on battlefield. But! If you play for your stats… Well… It means that you became Guinea Pigs doing just what WG (or in fact other 3rd party rating systems) want you to do, just to improve the stats. And THAT is the factor that changes gameplay, because at given situation players often do not take the most appropriate action for winning the game, but for their stats to look so so awesome.
A lot of people don’t have the same mindset as you. I actually really love seeing large numbers on my screen. Even if I didn’t have very fun battles, if I check my daily performance and see 2500 damage per game, 2 KPG, or the equivalent, I know I did well and that I can get better, then have more fun. I can understand not playing for stats, though. I just thought I’d say this.
Got your point. I didn’t say the stats itself are bad. I use WoT Statistics, and like to track my performance in greater detail, than the game allows me to do. My point was that playing FOR stats above all is the thing that often ruins the gameplay and sheer pleasure from playing the game.
Don’t even try to adjust yourself by WG’s rating standards…it’ll only empty your wallet.
I made graphics showing how parameters affect player’s rating and posted them in russian community: http://world-of-ru.livejournal.com/2492862.html (ATM livejournal.com seems to be derpy again, goddammit).
Basically there is a “coefficient of twink” 0..1 and rest of formula is multiplied to that number. After 20k battles player is no longer considered as new account. Amazing.
Other parameters are being summed:
winrate gives you up to 3000 (if wr>=60%);
surviving gives up to 5000 (most players got like 1000 or 2000);
100% accuracy gives up to 3000 points, 70% – 1500;
average xp (based on data collected since patch 8.8) gives 2000 rating for 600 avg xp and 4000 rating for 1000 xp, but you need to play 2000+ battles after 8.8 to get xp parameter really working;
average damage is directly adding to your rating.
Again, once lj.com gets working see the pictures in post I linked above.
“new accounts opened only for statpadding/twinking will never have good rating, because they will have low battle amount. This urges players to develop their main account and helps to fight twinks/sealclubbers/pedobears”
Real stat padders have ~10k battles on 1-2 tier tanks. So yeaa… not rly.
- average experience (without PA bonus) –> Okay, but average vehicle tier is still a factor that has its influence here
- average damage dealt per battle –> same as above
- amount of battles played –> actually pretty useless
- winrate –> most important factor I guess, bc that’s what the game is about
- winrate in battles where the player survived –> sounds intresting too+
- hit rate –> really? If I fire 10 shots and hit 10 times it’s not as good as if I fired 12 shots and hit 11 of them, is it? Don’t see the point with this one.
The goal of this “value” if to give an indication on how valuable a SINGLE PLAYER is in WoT battles.
Valuable is/should be = helping the team win a match?
If you can choose only ONE thing to measure this, what would you choose?
Personally I lean rather heavily towards damage done/spotted. You?
I think winratio is a strong contender as well, we should be doing everything we can to help our team win, sometime the “everything” will lower your damage and/or get you killed, but it’s still the right thing to do and is almost impossible to measure in any other way than WIN ratio.
Adding survival rate and hitratio seems useless to me….
Pingback: WoT: First day impression of 8.8 | stnylan's musings
Why dont they separate the platoon and solo stats becouse they surely has the data to do this. Platoon playing is the most common way to rise the stats. Way more common than tier 3 noob hunting.
It’s so much easier to win (show me a guy who’s WR in tier 10 matches is +60% without platoon/TC/CW) and to survive and get those easy last 3-6 shots to crippled enemy tanks in the end and get easy dmg and kills this way.
this new system is rigged to make the worst tier 10 player look better than the best low tier player
it is designed to make all those new crappy players running up the tiesr think they are a good player and getting better
kill one tier 10 in a tier 10 battle and do more damage than kill all 15 in a tier 2
but which is the better player?
higher tier battles generate higher damage and xp than the same performance at a lower tier and tier x players never fight tier 11 and 12 because there are not any and that is a real advantage
the game used to push players to play their mid tiers to keep their tier x going not any more it now punishes anyone not playing a tier 10
I have 14K battles over 2 1/2 yrs so not a nob at the game
best system I have seen is noobmeters much more accurate. Judge of player ability
t