Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PlanetaryGenocide last won the day on August 1

PlanetaryGenocide had the most liked content!

About PlanetaryGenocide

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/27/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
  • Server

Recent Profile Visitors

22,717 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by PlanetaryGenocide

  1. >tier 10 match

    >pubbie tries to tell me that there are more people who are below average than above average

    >tfw that's pretty much what the definition of "average" isn't

    >I point this out to him

    >he calls me an XVM statwhore queen


    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. Darvek


      I don't think it will though. The average (including draws) win rate used to be around 48.5%. With the maps and meta producing fewer draws, maybe it's 49% now. Bots win 40%. Super unicums win 65%+. If wins were perfectly distributed along a curve, you'd have a few terrible players at 40% (9% below average), a few experts at 58% (9% above average). It doesn't work that way. In order for the Fulcrouses of the world to win more than than the bots lose, you need more than one bot for every Fulcrous. So, in the end, you get more below average players than above average. Given the upper and lower bounds for WR (around 40% for bots or idiots who aren't actively TKing to intentionally lose, around 70% for experts who aren't padding with stuff like pref 5 platoons), and how those numbers relate to the average winrate it's inevitable that expert players cause their team to win more often than terrible players cause their team to lose.

      Edit - also, consider the number of players who maybe played 100, or 1000 matches, even 5000 then got bored or didn't like the game and moved on. Virtually every one of them would have a WR well below average. And they vastly outnumber the players who have 40k games played and have dragged their stats kicking and screaming to respectable levels.

    3. Jaegaer


      WN8 is calculated in a way that disregards the performance of very casual players and thus places the average at the average of active players that play tier VIII and above. That alone means that the "average" rating in WN8 is only average for a minority of players (basically the group that is interesting to begin with) and thus even if the distribution of skill would be linear (which, in addition, isn't the case) a lot more people fall below it than above it.

      If you were talking winrate however you would be right - IF you include all players that ever played! For active players you would be wroing too (that is called the inflation of winrate). On average bad players have less games than good players before they quit but there are way more bad players than good players. With many more bad players quitting the pool of remaining player-winrate becomes, on average, better, and thus becomes inflated from their games against the (now inactive) mass of baddies the game knew from the early boom times.

    4. Folterknecht


      When creating WN8 we culled players with a low battle number (below 5K if I remember it right) and "bots" from our datasets. There is no sense in trying to create a metric/stats that works for Major League Baseball players and 8 year olds.

    5. Show next comments  3 more
  • Create New...