Salvaging the Current Color Scale

[Android25 962]

Please note that this is different than  Never. I'm interested in the number of people who would rather try to improve upon the month+ of work we did making what is currently the color scale, rather than trashing it and starting anew... Where we will inevitably have to re-run a bunch of numbers and create new curves and things, whereas the math for this chart is already laid out for those who can understand it.

 

Here was my post in Building a Definitive Color Scale, but at 10 pages already, its just going to be lost quickly, can we please stay on topic... These topics tend to last 20+ pages anyway, and it becomes impossible to follow them.

 

---

 

So this topic has been brought up again, and to be honest I wasn't too happy myself with how the most recent color scale turned out.

 

I would like to propose we take another look at the color scale, and try to work out something that can always be used and only have the ratings associated with it move.

 

I'd also like for it to have Average as Yellow. This should be the basis of everything. There's no real damn sense in Average being red. One thing that has always stood true when designing ratings for anything is that red is bad, yellow is normal, green is good. Let's start from this point, shall we?

 

Also, I believe we need a 2-part process.

 

First part: We define how many steps our scale is going to have, and which colors they will be.

Second part: We define the ratings that will populate this scale.

 

Who brought this topic up again? Did they realize how long it took anybody to partially agree on what is already being used?

 

Please no... Not another month of debating only to have something that everybody contributed too but nobody is really fully happy with...

 

Average is a mathematical word (a number expressing the central or typical value in a set of data). The simple fact is that the average player in this game has already been defined as a poor player (worthy of red color status). If you want to make the middle of the scale yellow, then you do what was done a few months ago with the new scale, otherwise, you don't use the word average at all. Its unfortunate that the only people that have a real notable difference in the winning of the match over a large set of data are in the 90^th percentile of the server, but that's the truth. The only other option is that you add more colors to the upper portion of the scale so that Average (which is still bad) can be yellow. I think we ran out of colors last time, and I believe that's the reason this topic has been made in the first place.

 

---

 

I think the month we spent making what is the current scale deserves merit, and reworking it completely would be a step back. Breaking it into defined adjusted server percentile ranks is not only nice from a self to server comparative standpoint, but it also allows us use the scale for future WNX ratings.

 

There are 11 groups because it really isn't too much. I agree that it may be too much to keep track of in game, but on a website where people are trying to compare themselves to others, it works well on the basis that there is enough color definition in the lower half to determine where the player stands in levels needing help. There is enough definition in the middle to show where the player is in their level on understanding and learning, and there are just enough levels at the top to give people who have achieved supremacy at the game to show off a little epeen. The percentile steps also just make logical sense.

 

I think the only real reason for this topic is that people are upset with how ugly the teal color is. There were plenty of other color options suggested for the current chart in the old topic from page 23 and on ().

 

If you want to change the word average to something not mathematical, then go ahead, but true average is red... unfortunately no amount of math can keep that from being true.

 

 

Remember, it was proposed that all the colors become brighter, instead of more pastel, which gives us a greater number of nice looking colors to work with. The proposed color was a far more green teal variant.

 

 

vs.

 

 

The proposed list of non-pastel colors:

[Angry_Ray 114]

People... stahp bitching about the colors we have now. Just because you're red and wanna be "mahogany" or are teal and wanna be "turquoise" does not mean that the entire color scale needs to be reworked. IMO purple should have been left at 2350, but 2450 is what was decided and I have to live with it and work harder to be purple recent.

 

We're tankers, not pieces of a rainbow.

[Bobi_Kreeg 379]

The simple fact is that the average player in this game has already been defined as a poor player (worthy of red color status).

 

Stopped reading after this.

 

Will never open this thread again.

[CraBeatOff 5,741]

Stopped reading after this.

 

Will never open this thread again.

 

Later, denier!

[Dlur 2,350]

For me personally it's many reasons.  11 is too many colors.  The teal is godawful.  Using black at the bottom is a poor choice because it doesn't show up in-game at all.  Poop brown or white (same as if a player has no stats at all) would be significantly better.  

 

"Red" might be mathematically average, but honestly it's disheartening to load into 98% of your battles and both teams are either black or red.  At least when there were a bunch of bananas and oranges around you had some hope for humanity, sorta.  Red has historically stood for "bad" players.  Anything worse than a bad player (< 300wn8) should just not even register in the stats, as if the only thing they'd figured out how to do is double-click to open the game and then click the battle button...nothing else.

[Angry_Ray 114]

For me personally it's many reasons.  11 is too many colors.  The teal is godawful.  Using black at the bottom is a poor choice because it doesn't show up in-game at all.  Poop brown or white (same as if a player has no stats at all) would be significantly better.  

 

"Red" might be mathematically average, but honestly it's disheartening to load into 98% of your battles and both teams are either black or red.  At least when there were a bunch of bananas and oranges around you had some hope for humanity, sorta.  Red has historically stood for "bad" players.  Anything worse than a bad player (< 300wn8) should just not even register in the stats, as if the only thing they'd figured out how to do is double-click to open the game and then click the battle button...nothing else.

Therein lies the problem. If you make a bunch of reds/oranges yellows/greens.... where do you put our yellows/greens? Make them teal/blue? People are getting WAY too upset about this whole XVM color shit. Reds deny they're bad so want a different color, oranges deny they're badish and wanna be yellow, yellows deny being called average, greens whine they're not teal, 1900 teals whine they're not blue, 2350 blues whine they're not pruple, purples laugh at all. I think in its current state, the color scale is best as good as it's gonna get without starting the apocalypse.

 

As per the whole teal color... I think it's just fine. It's a middle ground between the dark green and blue learning curve.

[Cunicularius 4,543]

Hm... I actually like having teal, but having seen your suggestion for the non-pastel colors, I like those alternatives more, would support. :3

 

And where's the option for #HotPink!?!? o,3,o

For me personally it's many reasons.  11 is too many colors.  The teal is godawful.  Using black at the bottom is a poor choice because it doesn't show up in-game at all.  Poop brown or white (same as if a player has no stats at all) would be significantly better.  

 

"Red" might be mathematically average, but honestly it's disheartening to load into 98% of your battles and both teams are either black or red.  At least when there were a bunch of bananas and oranges around you had some hope for humanity, sorta.  Red has historically stood for "bad" players.  Anything worse than a bad player (< 300wn8) should just not even register in the stats, as if the only thing they'd figured out how to do is double-click to open the game and then click the battle button...nothing else.

I think that the grey "soot" color works in place of black.

 

And Sea of Piss > Sea of Red? 

Let's consider... do we want to define the average as average or the average as bad? For the former it'd be yellow, for the latter it'd be red...

So... Average=Average, Average=Bad, which is more significant/noteworthy?

[MaxL_1023 1,295]

The flaw in your assumption is that the average player is a poor player. What does that actually mean? You are making up a subjective skill-based scale which exists only in the mind of the person who invents it. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of accounts tracked. "Average" is average for a reason - this is the average skill level a player with X battles (I believe 1000 or 2500 for the current system) has attained. People with more battles tend to be slightly better, but this is compensated by newer players. The average WN8 of all players within a set criterion represents (somewhat imperfectly) the average level of skill a player has. If you judge this to be poor, that is your prerogative. However, it is useless for making any kind of metric due to the fundamentally subjective nature of your scale.

 

The fact is, average (and bad) players do contribute to a win. The fact that their win rate is higher then an AFKer proves that. Based on a few studies I heard of, the AFK/Bot line (represented by 0 WN8) is somewhere near 40% win rate, as high as 42% in some tanks, possibly 45% in scouts due to their poor MM and low relative weight. Take 42% as an average across tank classes. A 45% player is at the very bottom of the scale, however they contribute enough to their team to win 3 games which a bot would lose for every 100 played. This is statistically significant after a few hundred battles. It is objectively, statistically certain that a 300 WN8, 45% player contributes to their team. They do about 20% of the expected values in their tank, but they still contribute. 

 

As you move up, that fraction increases. It is notable that the slope is fairly shallow early on - going from 0.2-0.3-0.45, or roughly 2 of my exponential steps across 3 levels representing the range from about 300 to 650 WN8 only results in a 2-3% increase in win rate. At the bottom, going up one exponential step results in a change of +1% WR, which is still significant after taking into account the huge sample. The 3% from 0 to 300 represents more having your HP in play then anything, but even that is significant. 

 

Near the middle, the slope increases, so an exponential step results in a jump of 3-5% in win rate. Dealing ~40% more of everything makes you win another 3-5 games per 100. At the top, the system starts to break down, but you can see the final step of ~35% results in a solid 5% jump. This last step represents by far the largest skill jump based on diminishing returns theory. However, from the viewpoint of how you actually perform in battles, it has a similar effect to jumps lower down.

 

We have to change the current scale because it is needlessly complex and in general is insulting to most of the playerbase. We are applying our own subjective scale through the color categories. Replacing it with an easily justifiable mathematical progression which is based purely on relative performance (as measured as fractions of the expected values) produces a system which accurately represents the playerbase and is easily applied at all levels to show both absolute and relative performance.

[Cunicularius 4,543]

-snip-

Ok... that makes sense.

 

Then what sort of scale would you suggest?

[pauli 229]

Who brought this topic up again? Did they realize how long it took anybody to partially agree on what is already being used?

The proximate cause (to my understanding) is me posting some of my ideas in response to someone asking if we were going to update the chart due to the new wn8 values table (along wih answering the question in the negative). The general dissatisfaction with the current chart boiled over, and Never created a new thread.

So yes, the people involved realize how long it took last time.

[Never 7,715]

The current scale sacrificed usability for the sake of pragmatism. Average should never be red, regardless of how bad average would be. There are too many steps on the scale, and the naming convention used for some parts of the scale didn't work out well.

 

The color scale is supposed to be a quick visual indicator, but it strays too far from the principles of using colors to convey a message. This is why I want to rework it, to be more usable and more human-readable.

 

@Cunicularius

 

Average is Average. We can think that the average is bad, a lot of people here do. For some people here, anything below blue is bad. Truth of the matter is that what is considered "Bad" is mostly subjective, yet "Average" will always be objectively "Average".

 

Edit: Well MaxL explained better than I ever could

[CarbonatedPork 1,585]

I just want fewer bands representing wide chunks of percentile. Logarithmic-ish would be fine.

• 0-30th percentile (30% of population)
• 30-70th percentile (40% of population)
• 70-90th percentile (20% of population)
• 90-97th percentile (7% of population)
• 97-99th percentile (2% of population)
• 99th+ percentile (1% of population)

I think having too many categories is an eyesore and doesn't really convey a lot of information. I'd actually prefer to eliminate the distinction between greens and blues (making the 30-70th percentile yellow and less "harsh" to people in that category), but there are very real differences in their level of play where having the distinction in XVM would be nice.

[Cunicularius 4,543]

Can someone restate the goals of the color chart project?

[_Shrew 721]

I'd also like for it to have Average as Yellow. This should be the basis of everything. There's no real damn sense in Average being red. One thing that has always stood true when designing ratings for anything is that red is bad, yellow is normal, green is good. Let's start from this point, shall we?

 

Have to agree with this. Even if the average winrate and win8 of the entire player base is considered "average", it makes no sense to have it be red. When we see a sea of red - we think terrible team, when we see a sea of yellows - we think okay, should be a decent game, when we see anything above a sea of greens - we think it's time to put on the serious pants.

 

Neverwish wants to create a color scale that is intuitive to the human eye with something that all players can easily relate to based on the social labeling of what is considered a good, bad, or average player.

 

It isn't a problem of ratings, that can easily be changed, but when we find ourselves seeing the color red as neither good or bad it distorts our perceptions of colors.

 

We've come to a point as community where we can quickly associate certain colors with our own definitions of performance - Unicums will always label greens and yellows as poorly performing players, and reds will always label greens and yellows as high performing players.

[Never 7,715]

Neverwish wants to create a color scale that is intuitive to the human eye with something that all players can easily relate to based on the social labeling of what is considered a good, bad, or average player.

 

Man you found the words I couldn't find when trying to describe what I wanted, thank you.

[Enaris 215]

Pork, something to remember is the "Compression of Perspective".  A player who is in the top 5% of the server sees little "real" difference between the play of anyone yellow and below.  Yet, think about what Max said before.  While you may consider a 47% to be a "bad" player, the truth is that he's only slightly negative on your team compared to a 44%.  He'll cost his team around 1.5 of 100 games, as opposed to the 4.5 or so (assuming 48.5 average winrate) that the truly bad player costs his team.  That's as much as a difference as the one between a 53% and a 56% on the "positive" side.  That's a real difference, even if the compression of viewpoint makes them all appear "the same".

[bjshnog 4,447]

Game skill is no different from "trade" skill. For example, if you look at a person who is an architect and a construction worker, and he has years of experience doing it virtually flawlessly, he's a purple (or a dark purple). Then, you look at the average person, who knows that houses should have pitched roofs so that rain runs off them, but has no idea why supporting beams are needed, or how strong they need to be. They also do a poor job when they need to measure their timber to a millimeter scale. If you look at the worst people (who have never considered being an architect), they are very much similar to the average group.

 

The purple guy in this scenario is the guy who is qualified, has experience, and has learned how everything works. The average guy hasn't even tried to learn anything beyond what has come and gone as they've needed. Red is a fitting colour for him.

[Dlur 2,350]

 Reds deny they're bad so want a different color

Not at all.  49% winrate is middle of the road, not bad.  Certainly from high atop my blunicum perch a player with 49% winrate is bad TO ME, but as far as the overall game goes they aren't bad.  Hell, I'm a bad player in the perception of most super unicums.  However, the color scale never should have been changed to fit perception of bad, but rather fit what actually is bad (< 46% winrate).

 

While I fully support the idea of purple players getting more purple, and blue players getting to purple as noble goals for this community (as long as they're doing it by actually playing better and not just padding shit), I feel like a better overall goal for the entire World of Tanks community is to help brand new players become baseline competent, and then help baseline competent players become mechanically sound, and then help mechanically sounds players become map aware, and then help map aware players to become strategically minded.  When a community like us, that is built around the entire principle of helping players get better just wants to arbitrarily designate the average player as bad we're just giving them more rope to hang themselves with.  It is my belief that a truly great player will help to bring the poor, downtrodden pubbie up; not find new ways to push them further down.

[Never 7,715]

Game skill is no different from "trade" skill. For example, if you look at a person who is an architect and a construction worker, and he has years of experience doing it virtually flawlessly, he's a purple (or a dark purple). Then, you look at the average person, who knows that houses should have pitched roofs so that rain runs off them, but has no idea why supporting beams are needed, or how strong they need to be. They also do a poor job when they need to measure their timber to a millimeter scale. If you look at the worst people (who have never considered being an architect), they are very much similar to the average group.

 

The purple guy in this scenario is the guy who is qualified, has experience, and has learned how everything works. The average guy hasn't even tried to learn anything beyond what has come and gone as they've needed. Red is a fitting colour for him.

 

No, no it's not. Red is the guy who builds a flat roof, and Black is the guy who builds a bowl roof because he thinks that it's an easy way of getting a swimming pool.

[Angry_Ray 114]

Why do people HAVE to associate colors with any sort of average in the first place? The gift of having numbers to go along with our colors is that it gives us an idea of what a persons performance level is in the tanks he/she plays as opposed to just calling them "average" or "below average". If you're a red player, you obviously suck and underperform, that's the sad truth. You're neither average or below average, you're just terrible. Same thing goes with oranges being bad, yellows being okay, greens being acceptable, dark greens being decent, teals being good, blues being great, and purples being stellar.

 

The problem is the word average being thrown into the equation at all. When you say the word average people search for something to compare it to, because an average is usually a combination of things. Even if you're using average in a context that might mean "okay" people are only seeing the word average. Why complicate the scale that much? Use the colors to mean what they should mean. Terrible, bad, okay, acceptable, decent, good, great, stellar.

[Aquavolt 1,587]

Game skill is no different from "trade" skill. For example, if you look at a person who is an architect and a construction worker, and he has years of experience doing it virtually flawlessly, he's a purple (or a dark purple). Then, you look at the average person, who knows that houses should have pitched roofs so that rain runs off them, but has no idea why supporting beams are needed, or how strong they need to be. They also do a poor job when they need to measure their timber to a millimeter scale. If you look at the worst people (who have never considered being an architect), they are very much similar to the average group.

 

I can't believe you just compared World of Tanks to architecture 101. im literally so done right now.

 

What you just described was knowledge, what matters in tanks is knowledge, fast decision making, and execution.

 

Bad players are bad, average players are average, and good players are good due to a multitude of factors. It may be poor decision making, poor execution, lack of knowledge, inconsistency or whatever the cause may be.

 

There is absolutely no reason why bad players should be in the same category as average players, but then again our perspective of what's good and bad is purely subjective.

[Enaris 215]

An analogy I've used before in regards to player levels is to parallel it with one's educational level.  I think that keeps us from getting the idea that it's "all or nothing"  "unicum or red" or the like.

 

Red= Elementary School

Orange= Jr High

Yellow= High School Diploma

Green= College Degree

Blue=Masters

Purple= PhD

Dark Purple=Post Doc Fellowship

 

Now, of course, a major issue is that not everyone wants to go on to college or grad school (heh), and some are happy dropping out after 6th grade. 

 

However, while a PhD in any field can look at those below him and say "they don't truly understand the field", that doesn't mean that there isn't real differences between the groups below.

[Angry_Ray 114]

Not at all.  49% winrate is middle of the road, not bad.  Certainly from high atop my blunicum perch a player with 49% winrate is bad TO ME, but as far as the overall game goes they aren't bad.  Hell, I'm a bad player in the perception of most super unicums.  However, the color scale never should have been changed to fit perception of bad, but rather fit what actually is bad (< 46% winrate).

 

While I fully support the idea of purple players getting more purple, and blue players getting to purple as noble goals for this community (as long as they're doing it by actually playing better and not just padding shit), I feel like a better overall goal for the entire World of Tanks community is to help brand new players become baseline competent, and then help baseline competent players become mechanically sound, and then help mechanically sounds players become map aware, and then help map aware players to become strategically minded.  When a community like us, that is built around the entire principle of helping players get better just wants to arbitrarily designate the average player as bad we're just giving them more rope to hang themselves with.  It is my belief that a truly great player will help to bring the poor, downtrodden pubbie up; not find new ways to push them further down.

That's the problem with this community in a nutshell though. There are far too many players that reach a level like yours or even mine and then cast aside anyone they perceive as bad. I try my best to help out people I know, but admittedly am guilty of putting down the endless hordes of pubbies for being bad. Problem is there are ust so many out there that make me wanna give up on teaching because no matter how you approach them they respond in a hostile, offended manner.

 

Regardless of my personal views, I don't think labeling a red player as bad or terrible should be taken as them being put down. Granted it easily could be taken as such, that title is earned just as the others are. I know if I was labelled as bad, I would try everything possible to get out of that category.

[Dlur 2,350]

That's the problem with this community in a nutshell though. There are far too many players that reach a level like yours or even mine and then cast aside anyone they perceive as bad. I try my best to help out people I know, but admittedly am guilty of putting down the endless hordes of pubbies for being bad. Problem is there are ust so many out there that make me wanna give up on teaching because no matter how you approach them they respond in a hostile, offended manner.

 

Regardless of my personal views, I don't think labeling a red player as bad or terrible should be taken as them being put down. Granted it easily could be taken as such, that title is earned just as the others are. I know if I was labelled as bad, I would try everything possible to get out of that category.

Reading your reply I find it difficult to believe that you even read past the first 2 sentences of my post.

[Angry_Ray 114]

Reading your reply I find it difficult to believe that you even read past the first 2 sentences of my post.

Well then you would be sadly wrong.