Jump to content

RichardNixon

Mathematics Contributor
  • Content Count

    1,406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by RichardNixon

  1. It doesn't scale well. For damage it's about +8% for each +10% you'd gain in an average tank. That's actually worse skill scaling than tier 6 arties, although better than tier 8+ arties. I don't like the term "skill ceiling", as it implies a hard limit beyond which skill doesn't matter, which doesn't fit the evidence in WoT.
  2. Nah, WN9 is a two value system. Sorta like xTE except with the values expressed differently and the lower one not being pathetically wrong.
  3. Yes, but that was never actually true. WN8 was probably intended to be contribution-linear, but the platooning and tier-scaling problems in rWin wrecked that idea. Consider the effects of the 0.22 rDmg cap and the frags*dmg term. 1.34x expected damage for 2450 WN8 is about average in practice.
  4. 1. I don't know where targetdamage.com gets 1450 from, but it's probably making a bad assumption. WN8 isn't anywhere near linear, so if your rDmg, rFrag, rSpotC and rWinC scale similarly (which they usually do) then you only need 1.34x the expected values for unicum, or <1300 damage. 2. leggasiini is correct on the skill-scaling point. WN8 assumes that all tanks have equal skill scaling, which they obviously don't. The centre point for the expected values is around the average tier 10 skill level. Slow tanks generally pad for players below that skill level, and anti-pad for players abo
  5. I don't collect 2 & 3-man data separately, and the data's thin because the matchmaker was rewritten in 5.8. Typical advantage of platooning appears to be 2-4%, with no clear dependency on solo winrate, which is odd. Either players don't platoon with players of similar skill in WoWS, or there's some partial skill balancing applied to platoons.
  6. Well, looking at the whole signature, it does appear to be picking the value from the right that's numerically closest to 250 battles. The odd thing in your case is that it's not showing anything between 1d and 90d.
  7. The standard overall & recent WN8 methods don't use the tanks/stats API, so they're unaffected. Per-tank WN8 is affected, but most sites implement a workaround where the account/tanks results are used to filter tanks/stats. This can have a significant performance impact. I'd rather not build support for an obvious bug directly into the metric, although I suppose I should document the workaround. From my perspective it's actually more useful to see the old tanks. Cuts down on the cross-server reroll bias.
  8. Ok, here are distribution tables for two-month (min 100 battle) recent WN9 on RU, EU and NA. This uses the internal scale with 1.0 = meets expected values. NA EU RU 10.00% 0.278 0.279 0.317 20.00% 0.370 0.368 0.423 30.00% 0.454 0.452 0.508 40.00% 0.535 0.532 0.581 50.00% 0.612 0.608 0.649 60.00%
  9. The tanks/stats API doesn't clear the old tanks when you reset an account, so account WN9 is working with 26000 battles rather than 3500. Shouldn't be a new issue though. You get 1823 tanks/stats WN8 on the same data, for comparison.
  10. Well, they're in the queue because they're not in a game, so queue numbers are a bit misleading. The light tank battle count did rise sharply since the missions (especially on EU), but it seems to make surprisingly little difference to the class & skill balance. They don't have much practical impact on available HP because they don't deal much themselves, and unlike arty, they probably don't have a disproportionate impact on better players. You would expect lights to take spots from other tanks (which would reduce the available WN9), but the parallel increase in arty counts seems to c
  11. Ok, changed my mind. There's a relatively straightforward way to implement per-server and per-metric distribution scaling, mostly with data that I'm already collecting. I'll throw something together and see what it looks like.
  12. Tier 10 armour doesn't work as well against tier 10 guns as tier 8 armour works against tier 8 guns, but that's not what the matchmaker gives you, so the bounce percentages are quite similar. The relative strength of mediums at tiers 9 and 10 is probably due to the alpha jump, which has already been flattened out in sandbox. It comes down to the decision that tier 9-10 TDs and MTs had to be equally valuable as heavies. The 704 would have been a decent tier 10 TD if they'd stuck to the tier 5-7 balancing rules.
  13. Winrates usually change more, because they shifts drastically every time WG tweak the matchmaker. There's a limited point in measuring overall stats in a game that's changing frequently. Otherwise, the proportion of solo winrate in the metric should depend on battle count. If the playstyle variation (damage+frags vs winrate) is similar to WoT, you'd use mostly winrate beyond 1000 battles but mostly damage+frags at 100 battles. It's all terrible unless the expected values are good though.
  14. The 50/51 doesn't have the popularity (yet) or the damage output for mediocre players. That effect was absorbable, even together with the M48 & E5 overbuffs, partly because gradual changes are more acceptable than sudden ones, but also because the Grille had a much larger effect. The Grille-spam's more like a 100-150 damage penalty at that level, assuming that you don't play it yourself. I suspect there are stronger historical effects, notably an increase in arty counts since personal missions, map changes, and player-base stagnation leading to higher average skill & tie
  15. Main disruptive features of the Grille: Easily the highest damage output at tier 10 for most players. Doesn't have much HP itself. Extremely popular. Together, those three points drag down the damage output of all other tier 8-10 tanks, especially tier 10s. The available HP is lower, and the Grille's taking more of it.
  16. Err, I'm pretty sure the falloff is progressive on both the live server and sandbox. For example, the 300m penetration will be somewhere between the 50/100m and 500(?)m values. There is a question of whether the falloff is linear with distance or semi-physical, although it would be difficult to tell the difference anyway. I would be very surprised if WG didn't nerf penetration falloff & shot distribution at all tiers. If yolo-flanking is intended to be the dominant med tactic at tier 10 then the same intention would apply to lower tiers. I suspect lower tier meds would get a lo
  17. So it turns out that the Grille totally fucked up tier 10. I need to rework the normalization system so that the expected values don't lurch around too wildly. Might take a couple of days. I don't bother working around the account reset bug, as then I'd have to document the method for other sites. You could try begging WG to fix their shit. I suppose I could add a probable-reset warning.
  18. You don't have to review every report. Only players beyond a threshold. They couldn't review reports before because they didn't have server-side replays. I don't know if this changed. It's possible that they're just blustering and they still have no method for reviewing in-game offences aside from chat. This shit is pathetically poorly written though. If you're going to have permanent strikes, you should start by making it absolutely clear what they're for: "Minor Chat Violations follow the 5 strikes policy, and consist of non-derogatory but still offensive insults." <- What'
  19. Nothing usable. I only started collecting full server data a year ago, and it's a bit patchy. The number of battles played by my high-activity EU sample (~80% of server activity) remained pretty flat though, when you'd expect it to drop even if the game was expanding. A drop in active player count might just be down to increasing SSD use: Players are more inclined to close an idle game client when it doesn't take 5 minutes to reload.
  20. Well, if you can count on anything from WG, it's inconsistency. Turns out that the tier 9 batchat supertest ID was temporary, and the tank actually inherits the ID from the Lorraine. Hence it's more like new model + stats than a typical new tank. I imagine some players rather wanted to lose their Lorraine stats, but there you go.
  21. First column should be N/A, because it's not applicable. If the second column (tanks/stats) doesn't have a number then you may need shift/ctrl-refresh. Web caching sucks. You're at 914.5 anyway. Other news: - KR should be added to the experimental stats page soon, because WG suddenly made the application IDs universal. They also made the WoT console API public, although that would take rather more work to implement. - Data for the next expected values pass should be ready on Monday 1st August. I'll probably call that 1.0 and then release WN9 generally, which basically means pagi
  22. In theory, this should be corrected to some degree by mixing frags and damage. In practice it's difficult to tell because winrate is too inaccurate to measure against in WoWS. People just don't play enough battles. If people played enough battles then you could just use ship-adjusted solo winrate (raw & non-solo winrate are trash) for a near-perfect metric. They don't though, so damage + frags could easily be a better metric, and almost certainly is for recents & per-ship.
  23. Dug around a bit. res/engine_config.xml has two frame rate values: <maxFrameRate> 120 </maxFrameRate> <reducedFrameRate> 60 </reducedFrameRate> I'm not sure when reducedFrameRate would apply. Maybe if it detects you're on a laptop, or something like that. You could try editing the values, but you'd need a tool because the WoT XML files are non-standard. I use WoT mod tools 0.5, but I can't find a download link for it. This tool appears to do the same thing: http://mods.curse.com/wot-mods/worldoftanks/wot-binary-xml-viewereditor
  24. The tier 9 Batchat has a new ID, so by default nothing would transfer: You'd need to start again from scratch. It's possible that WG would pass over the mark data specifically, but I'd be surprised. WTF -> Grille players should know what WG normally does in this situation.
×
×
  • Create New...