Jump to content

Is the colour "green" for avarage WN8 too lenient?

Recommended Posts

Right, before I begin, I just want to point out that I, personally, don't have any problem with the current WoT Labs colour scale. Also, apologies if this has Bern answered before or is rambly, I'm just trying to put into words what I'm thinking...

However, in a thread over on the EU forum  Linky where a player talks about what colour scale they use, one person says that green should not be used as the avarage WN8, but yellow should. Also ignore any statements about how the data is gotten, it was late/early and my brain went potato.

Anyway, me and several others were trying to explain to him about why the colour scale is as it is, but he is adamant that the wording is correct, the colours are not. This got me thinking of two things:

1. He is right, and the green is too much of a good colour to use for an avarage player? There is a lot of green in games, but to me, at least I can see that they at east know what to do.

2. (my personal opinion) he is suffering from the "good but doesn't see it" effect. The player in question is a solid teal player (1600-1999). However, in his Sig he says he really is just a green player.

I couldn't find any info on how the colours were decided (but my search game is weak tho.) What do you guys think, is he right and the green should be higher, or is it fine the way it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now I'm pretty sure that the guy is talking out his arse and wants the old colour scale back to be a special snowflake.

User, I think he means he wants the lower green bracket removed and mixed in with the yellow bracket. Which makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess he wants the old 6 color scale, where blue starts at 2000 WN8.

just raise blue to 3k so we stop getting xvm sniped 



Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole colour scale has gradually become more pleb-friendly so the shitters don't get too butthurt. I still remember how "noob" and "bot" or something were changed to "basic" and "beginner" because MUH FEELZ. All the brackets from red to green are basically just another shade of useless, and especially in battles the distinction is totally pointless. XVM is what most people use WoT stats for, so if you want that to be a useful tool you have to make a custom config that covers all the different shades of useless under one label and colour: meatshields.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently play at 1700-2000 WN8 and >55 WR depending on class and whether I'm stock grinding. I still consider myself very unreliable as a teammate, i.e. still a shitter.

I use my own customised XVM scale file.

I consider everything (well, teammates, at least) below 1000 WN8 to be unrated, i.e. irrelevant to the battle (grey).
Everything from 1000 to 1500 is noob level. (dark red - red)
1500 to 1800 is 'probably contributing' (orange - yellow)
1800-2500 are good/okay players, depending on whether their WR corresponds proportionately. (green, teal, dark blue)
2500 and above unicum as usual (purple and beyond).

I also judge based on WR a lot. There are so many goddamn players out there with 1600-2000 WN8 but retarded WR like 50-53%. I consider these players detrimental to the outcome of the battle as they are more likely damage farmers with no view to the team's interests.

I think different people probably have a different idea of what constitutes 'good' and 'average', independent of actual statistics. Of course it's completely arbitrary.

Just two cents from your average shitter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with sundance, the bright red tomatoes are likely to drive broadside to several guns, but basically anyone below 1600 (that's me!) is still learning (or plateaued). I don't consider myself reliable, cause I think largely that is what the color scale represents....purple guys are consistent, green guys are capable of purple level damage, but also blend that in with potato games. Just a day or two ago I played 5 games in my T-34-1 and my damage was 1721, 1752, 246, 0, 1774....W, L, L, W, W

I'm not consistent/reliable...I can play good games, but not every game is a good game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue I see is that 650-899 is considered "average".

If I see a player with a WN8 like, I automatically assume that they are just as bad as tomato. 

I also don't see why that is considered average when the NA "active" average is 1100.

Where are you getting your numbers for what is average?  If it is from vbaddict, they are basing their data on the very small group of players that are uploading there and most of their users are above average.  The average player I see in randoms is definitely below 1100.  Most of them are red.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just modify your colors.xc to your liking. This is my own config and what they mean to me:

  • <1100 (grey): 9 times out of 10 inconsequential to the game, rudimentary knowledge of game mechanics or brawling tactics, zero to minimal threat in a 1 v 1 situation, effortlessly outplayed.
  • 1101 - 1300 (yellow): somewhat consistent/competent at applying game mechanics and decent at brawling, mild threat in a 1 v 1 situation, but still easily outplayed 6 out of 10 times tactically and positionally.
  • 1301 - 1650 (green): competent at aforementioned skills, moderate threat in a 1 v 1, whether I can outplay them largely would depend on map position rather than tactics.
  • 1651 - 2000 (teal): high mastery of aforementioned skills, significant threat in a 1 v 1, much more situationally aware and taking these players head on would result in an equal damage trade (which is something to be avoided mostly) 
  •  > 2001 (blue/purple): safe to assume they have unicum/superunicum recents and are very formidable opponents

Do note I'm not advocating drastically altering your strategy/aggression based on XVM colours (e.g. yoloing tomatoes and arrogantly assuming they will always get outplayed). This colour config makes the most sense to me and I'm just sharing what a useful tool like XVM could suggest

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use custom config.

  • Grey from 0 to 1300
  • Yellow from 1300 to 1700
  • Green from 1700 to 2100
  • Blue from 2100 to 2500
  • Purple from 2500 to 3000
  • Dark purple from 3000

This scale pretty much sets people apart not by their combat skills but by carry potential. I expect yellows to at least know game mechanics, greens to secure close game wins and carry from time to time, blues to occasionally carry, purple to carry on regular basis and dark purple is pretty much someone from top clan or part of WGL EU.



Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the teampanel GUI will not be very colorful like that. Mostly grey with some colored dots here and there. On Tier 10. Completely grey on lower tiers most games :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to look into any of the color scaling topics in this subforum, so you can be educated on the history of this endless debate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a debate that will continue to go round and round.

My overall is terrible but my recent is starting to edge into, that guy is ok if not wholly dependable. Overall wn8 seems very unreliable while recent is capable of being gamed by tank selection. I have improved substantially from my overall but my recent 30 day is unduly influenced from grinding the t-34 and now the MT-25.

The best play in pubbie matches appears to be assume everyone is an untrained monkey and just hope your team of monkeys flings shit at the red team rather than each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my scale i use to judge people with greater number of games than typical newbie (like 8k+ or put another number from 5k to 10k :doge: ) or to judge recents .

not for sensitive people/murricans :doge: 





Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting your numbers for what is average?  If it is from vbaddict, they are basing their data on the very small group of players that are uploading there and most of their users are above average.  The average player I see in randoms is definitely below 1100.  Most of them are red.

It's on the front page of wotlabs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about colour, I discriminate them all with equal spite ...

Reds? F***ing bots!

Oranges? Seriously how many WoT players work in a saw mill? And how stupid do they have to be to cut of multiple fingers? I like the fruit, though.

Yellows? Stop using your brains as toilets!

Greens? A donkey on crystal meth can do better!

Teals? Is that even a colour? I don't care - they are just delusional shitters who think they are good.

Blues? Not my kind of music. Also I am not impressed. Even I manage blue overall. And if you knew how badly suited I am for anything that isn't a slow-paced strategy game, you would understand my contempt for my peers.

Purples? These days, 50% are rerolls anyway.

Dark purples? 70% are rerolls; the rest I respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Er. Hi guys. That forumite over on the EU forum would be me. Sorry.

am aware of my skill level, WG pegs me as just inside the top 5% last time I checked, and I think I'm in about the same place when you look at WN8. Certainly, at least when playing mid-tiers, it's not common to be outside the top two or three players on both teams according to XVM, until I run into a three man uni platoon or two.

So you would expect that I could go up against 20 random players 1v1 and win all but one battle? Possibly.

One thing I do know, is that I am not yet good enough to be properly consistent, which is what I'm working on.  I've all but eliminated my mediocre games, unfortunately, that's left me with either really good (for me so 4k +) :)  or really bad (even for a scrub) games where everything goes wrong and I get really bad wn8 games, approaching 0 :(. And these are happening about equally hence my roughly 2k recent wn8.

I'd most likely lose a few more than just that one game but dominate others to make up for it.


Forgetting about player distribution, I would say that I am, on a linear scale through bot, bad, poor, middling, good, very good, awesome and amazing, in the very good category. I'd probably rate myself higher if I would stop screwing up all the time.

If I am able to make my gameplay more consistently good, I will happily up a skill bound.

Following a"traffic light" system, I would place middling as yellow, bad as red and very good as green. Poor therefore becomes orange and good becomes that yellow/green colour I don't really have a name for.

What would I call a middling skill level?  I would say that someone is middling if they have a half decent knowledge of the game and are able to put it to use, such as knowing the typical places on the map that tanks are effective, knowing general weak spot areas, etc.

Take one of my old clan leaders for example; he knew general scouting locations, and through experience, the sort of ranges he could spot things, but no idea of the actual spotting mechanics. He knew not to drive round corners exposing his side, and where the general weaknesses of tanks are. He lacked situational awareness though. He would always use the same positions on a map regardless of team composition or his place in it, so if in a heavy tank, he would always go to his spot, whether alone or not, top tier or bottom.  When facing an enemy heavy with enough armour, or positioned such that he couldn't penetrate the usual spots, he would struggle. He would always keep pushing forwards, and rarely turn back to switch flanks etc.

So a player with some skill, and will (just about) help rather than hinder in most games.


Now, instead of explicitly trying to work rankings based on player skill levels, which is relatively arbitrary. WOTlabs rank based on the deviation from the average player, which is just a different representation of the data, essentially comparing a player based on the skill level of an average player, and not a skill level.

And I am okay with that. I really am. It makes sense on multiple levels.

The only issue is that the vast majority of players, even excluding bots, are poor players, and you find that this means that the average player level is therefore quite poor.


Quite a while ago now, after the original change to the WOTlabs scale, I began using a custom colour config. It has changed since, but at the time, the 900+ WN8 band was called intermediate, (I.e. average) and this had the current light green colour that the band has today.

As I was not using and updating the WOTlabs scale, I had not noticed that a new band had been added and the sections renamed to add the new 'average' band slotted into the top end of the old below average band.


That the average WN8 has apparently fallen is a little worrying. But as it currently stands, green is at least above average now, which makes me happy.

I would still prefer to class myself as 'green' (dark or otherwise) but I'm going to be happy to class myself as higher once I can cut out some more of my terrible games. I feel that once I have done so, I will have reached some sort of milestone.

All in all though, the colours chosen are essentially arbitrary, the distributions that are chosen are what matters, not the colour assigned to them. And I am happy with those for the purpose of comparing players against the player base.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think this is the best scale ever devised (apologies for not crediting the author - I forget which of the usual posters was responsible)...

WoTLabs color scale.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Green players on 1200+- should be dealt as average and lowered to dark yellow. Just look at wotlabs main page. The avg wn8 for active players is already "greenish".

Players with 1200 or so can be green and have a sense that they are decent, but they are not.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...