Mathematics Contributor
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Buckyball

  • Rank
    Stats Denier Mid Life Crisis

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Server

Recent Profile Visitors

626 profile views
  1. I am still trying to figure out if Richard Nixon was Praetor.
  2. I only claimed the possibility, I made no statement to the probability. Unicums are limited by the health pool of the enemy team AND the damage friendly tankers do. For instance, it could lead to flanks being overwhelmed very fast and many of the games might just lead to races for damage for the winning team and being steamrolled for the losing team. Kind of like the lower tiers, but worse. Another possibility is the map is so much more crowded, there will be significantly less cover and damage will proceed at a much quicker pace per tank. Another possibility is that less damage on average for all tankers will happen as the battles may end in draws or caps more frequently. This is almost certainly true if they don't extend the timers. If it is the case the average wn8 of the aggregate of all players WILL go down. This could cause the average for the unicum to go down. It is just conjecture, but the idea that damage would double is obviously incorrect and we shouldn't just assume the average scores of a unicum will go up.
  3. People seem to be missing that the average stats in 30 vs 30 will be similar to 15 vs 15. It's not double stats. 15/15 = 30/30. How this will affect different skill sets in unclear. For all we know, super unicums could do LESS damage in such games!!!
  4. It would be a most excellent system. Especially if you disregarded tank selection, in effect making tank selection a part of the metric. Some internalized adjustment would need to be made for tier played I think. Unfortunately, WG doesn't give you the data to make such a thing happen. Praetor, Richard Nixon (same person perhaps ??? ) and I discussed this but it's not possible with the data provided. IMHO, WG gives a flawed API in order to prevent an accurate rating system from being developed. There is a reason Poker is more popular than Chess. Providing a game where most everyone can delude themselves into thinking they are worthy is very important to the success of a game on a monetary level. My .02
  5. There is no way to answer your question. How much relevance do you want?
  6. I would like to put up a few cautionary arguments. 1) I would vote against calling this wn8 as what is being proposed is not wn8, it's deceptive. 2) The massive changes to wot are not done with, there may be substantial alterations to the changes this patch. We also have yet to fully realize the effects this patch will have on the game. 3) Before adopting a new system that will have to be sold to others, we should know how this new system compares to WG's PR rating system. If it has less efficacy then what is the point? We should measure twice before cutting once. Is anyone willing to do one more update to wn8 so we could have time for the dust to settle?
  7. I know Richard Nixon did a comparison between wn9 and some of the other metrics a long time ago but since wn9 changed so much, especially at the end, does anyone even know how much efficacy wn9 holds over wn8/WGPR/TEFF?
  8. I agree with Seriych. I fail to see the point of harming WN8 on purpose. Even if it's only for a short period of time, it sends a poor message for several reasons. (Disregard if you guys are trolling Seriych )
  9. For aesthetics shouldn't what is currently 600 wn9 be 420? Super would be 700. It would be a bit deeper joke. Not to mention, 420 should be a number obtainable for all. Sharing is caring!
  10. The retention level at 65% was not chosen by polling, it was chosen by a push pole that could only give the result desired. A pole that had started at %50 and ended at 100% would have returned a result of %75 for instance. Wn9, in its current implementation, will give a clear road map on which tanks to play in order to improve rating. People will be mandated to "fix" their old often hated tanks (within the threshold) or new tanks and discouraged from playing their favorite tanks they wish to be virtuosos of. Jack of all trades will win for what seems like a purely arbitrary view. Could we get a real overall without throwing out data along with this hybrid system? That way people could choose for themselves which to use.
  11. From a wn9 boosting perspective for tanks beyond threshold: Its quite possible to get lucky or unlucky for several hundred games. It seems wn9 would encourage players to play tanks they got unlucky with rather than lucky with. If a person plays to the threshold and gets super results, it makes no sense to continue to play that tank. A person should only play the tanks they feel they can improve performance. For instance I played the KV5 way over my usual performance, why would i continue to play this tank? I think i am quite unlikely to get significantly better results, but could get significantly worse results. Even if this makes wn9 prediction ability better, having a rating system that encourages players to play tanks other than the ones they wish to play seems like bad juju. I would also be worried, if wn9 gets widespread adoption, about people purposefully doing poorly in tanks for fraudulent reasons. Here are two exploits: 2 man platoon, one person is in capped tank one is not. Feeding your accomplice and taking turns could equal big wn9 rewards. Or Counting in with buddies. 2 2 man platoons. two in tanks that count for wn9 ( 65% and not capped) and two in tanks that dont count (35%ers or capped). In the current system throwing to your buddy hurts you in approximately the same magnitude it helps your accomplice, this would no longer be the case for wn9.
  12. Hey Richard, congrats on getting this far! The second question seems like a push pole as before anyone even voted it seemed clear the result would be 60-65 based on the options. Personally I would have liked to have seen a 100% option. What we monkeys vote anyway is irrelevant as I don't really see how anyone except the very few who have looked at the guts of your data could offer anything other than a guess on what is best. i.e. Statisticians should not be asking Doctors if a drug saves lives. It seems that much focus has gone into making the metric predict performance without much concern for manipulation of the system after wn9 is implemented. Sacrificing some accuracy to add some immunity to manipulation is worth it. This argument fell on deaf ears during the wn8 implementation. Couple of questions: 1) A person has 2 tier 10's that are over the threshold. Overall rating is 900, Recent rating is 900 in all tanks. One tank has a 800 rating and one has a 1000 rating for this person. If that person plays the 1k tank his rating will go down, If he plays the 800 tank his rating will go up. (on average) Am I understanding this correctly? If so that seems problematic. 2) Is there any case where doing poorly in a tank could raise your rating? I am a bit unclear exactly how the lowest 35% is determined. I sure hope there is no way to game this. Thanks again for the work!
  13. Why did this guy get so many negs? Whatever he has done in the past, this post is reasonable and may be of community service.
  14. The Pz 58 Mutz will probably have stats closer to the amx cdc if I compare correctly. It's terrain resistance is wowsome. Indien panzer has around 11% more dps but, inferior gun handling and far less mobility.
  15. When might the great overlord(s) of Wotlabs implement wn9 for this sites supported rating system? My .2 Cents, Considering Richard says WN9 overall is comparable/superior to any other overall metric, we should use it. We have to have something for overalls.