Jump to content
GloatingSwine

New global rating system. Pad hard!

Recommended Posts

I can't be the first one to say this... But I've have yet to see anyone else who has mentioned it...

 

ALL the current rating systems that can be viewed by other players are.... shit. I doubt I differ too much in skill just from one week to another just depending on what tanks/tank trees I am playing. When I grinded the Hellcat non stop I was obviously ending up with some really good WN7 as that is a tank which is really benefiting from the WN7 formula. Playing slow and under performing tanks at, lets say, tier 8 will give me a much worse WN7 despite me being at the same top percentage as I was in with a WN7 wise overperforming tank. So, does that make me a worse player now that I actually had to grind through a tank which is far from optimal for getting WN7. Not a chance. WN7 might be a fair measurement if you compare it tank per tank to other players WN7's in these specific tanks.

 

So, where am I going with this? Wargaming can make their overall rating based on tank specific performances setting the absolute top performance of a players in a specific tank to, lets say, 5k. I'm afraid my English isn't quite enough to explain what I mean, but I will try to explain myself:

 

Every player in the top 1000th percent gets 5k WGR (wargaming rating) for that tank. This player will obviously not maintain that on all tanks and will not get 5k overall, as it will get dragged down by other tanks where he might just be part of the top 1 percent. Being top 1% might just yield 4k wgr,  top 3% 3k wgr, top 10% 2k wgr, top 50% 1k wgr and top 80% 500 wgr. I haven't given the scaling any thought whatsoever....

 

Lets say a player has 4k wgr at a Hellcat with 1k battles played and 1k wgr at a T49 after 2k battles. That would give him ((4000*1000)+(1000*2000))/(1000+2000)=2000 overall wgr.

 

There would obviously need to be a rating of sorts on which to base this index, a rating where the WN7 might be a good option unless WG can take other hidden stats into consideration.

 

I hope I sort of made sence, or I might just be a rambling lunatic. At least I hope you get my point with how WG can use tank specific stats and make something out of that rather than making something out of the overall scores, which, lets be honest, are compeltely shit and useless if you actually want to compare two good players to eachother.

 

 

Cheers,

EJ

 

edit: This means that you can play a certain OP tank as much as you want and still not get better WGR as there are always players outperforming you by miles anyway. To a certain extent you will be able to statpad the rating on which the index is based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be the first one to say this... But I've have yet to see anyone else who has mentioned it...

 

ALL the current rating systems that can be viewed by other players are.... shit. I doubt I differ too much in skill just from one week to another just depending on what tanks/tank trees I am playing. When I grinded the Hellcat non stop I was obviously ending up with some really good WN7 as that is a tank which is really benefiting from the WN7 formula. Playing slow and under performing tanks at, lets say, tier 8 will give me a much worse WN7 despite me being at the same top percentage as I was in with a WN7 wise overperforming tank. So, does that make me a worse player now that I actually had to grind through a tank which is far from optimal for getting WN7. Not a chance. WN7 might be a fair measurement if you compare it tank per tank to other players WN7's in these specific tanks.

 

So, where am I going with this? Wargaming can make their overall rating based on tank specific performances setting the absolute top performance of a players in a specific tank to, lets say, 5k. I'm afraid my English isn't quite enough to explain what I mean, but I will try to explain myself:

 

Every player in the top 1000th percent gets 5k WGR (wargaming rating) for that tank. This player will obviously not maintain that on all tanks and will not get 5k overall, as it will get dragged down by other tanks where he might just be part of the top 1 percent. Being top 1% might just yield 4k wgr,  top 3% 3k wgr, top 10% 2k wgr, top 50% 1k wgr and top 80% 500 wgr. I haven't given the scaling any thought whatsoever....

 

Lets say a player has 4k wgr at a Hellcat with 1k battles played and 1k wgr at a T49 after 2k battles. That would give him ((4000*1000)+(1000*2000))/(1000+2000)=2000 overall wgr.

 

There would obviously need to be a rating of sorts on which to base this index, a rating where the WN7 might be a good option unless WG can take other hidden stats into consideration.

 

I hope I sort of made sence, or I might just be a rambling lunatic. At least I hope you get my point with how WG can use tank specific stats and make something out of that rather than making something out of the overall scores, which, lets be honest, are compeltely shit and useless if you actually want to compare two good players to eachother.

 

 

Cheers,

EJ

 

edit: This means that you can play a certain OP tank as much as you want and still not get better WGR as there are always players outperforming you by miles anyway. To a certain extent you will be able to statpad the rating on which the index is based.

 

Indeed, there are major limits to performance metrics given the data. And yes, WN* doesn't work when a player plays a tank serially. I think you, and baxtaz on NA have shown that the Hellcat breaks the average tier sufficiently to give wildly high WN7 ratings. Is there a way to fix this? Not really, because the API is limited and all the other tier 6 TDs and tanks really are kinda shitty. 

 

WN7 works well for non-re-rolled accounts playing a "normal" distribution of tanks over a long period of time. But like anything, odd tanking patterns (including re-rolling with an IS-6, playing the VK2801 for 20,000 games, or playing only tiers 1 and 10 for example) make for aberrant ratings. 

 

That said, I wish I could share your hope for WG's rating. I sincerely doubt they hired a measurement expert to devise it, although given the data they have access to (just from the dossier!), it would be entirely possible to create a very good rating. They won't though. I think Deusmortis' view is likely the accurate one on this matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good section of the WoT population has already been exposed to rankings, via XVM, efficiency, WoT Labs, etc.  But remember, a sizable portion of the players are ignorant of mods, forums, help sites, etc.  They likely fall into "above average syndrome" and assume they are good.

 

When WoT puts in a visible, server wide ranking system, ignorance takes a beating.  It will make many more people face the two decisions listed above.  Many won't care, but some will.  And those who want to improve?  I bet a lot of them will buy gold as part of their quest to move up the ladder. 

 

When I first started playing1 I knew about the official Forums. But I stayed away because it's full of negativity (and, so bad, this site popped up). I wasn't aware of XVM really was, nor any of the other sites that had statistics/measurement information. I focused on the tab in game and the website that showed little badges if you did good and had numbers for comparative ratings. After a while, I found the mods scene and started investigating that, which led to XVM and then all the stuff I had seen in the videos started clicking more. With that as background, I'd say that whatever stats they, WGNA, put in the tabs in-game, those are going to be exactly what users try and make high/low/whatever. This, to me, will probably dictate how new users and non-wotlabs readers play the game. I hope that WGNA steals the formula from WN or even the efficiency one. Yes, those are both farmable, but, they will also be something that's in the users face so maybe they'll at least attempt to win more games. Although, we all know that won't happen.

 

 

So, where am I going with this? Wargaming can make their overall rating based on tank specific performances setting the absolute top performance of a players in a specific tank to, lets say, 5k. I'm afraid my English isn't quite enough to explain what I mean, but I will try to explain myself:

 

Because they aren't limited to the API they serve the public, they can and should use tank specific performance. If done right, this may trump all of the "external" ratings systems. Although, realistically, there's a high probability that WGNA will screw up the first version they create, if they were to create such a rating system.

 

That said, I wish I could share your hope for WG's rating. I sincerely doubt they hired a measurement expert to devise it, although given the data they have access to (just from the dossier!), it would be entirely possible to create a very good rating. They won't though. I think Deusmortis' view is likely the accurate one on this matter. 

 

I don't think they need to hire a measurement expert. IMO that'd be a waste of money. They can easily read the forums here and cobble together a working formula. And, when we all cried about it, they could fix it in the next patch. I haven't been with this game or in the community very long at all, so I don't know how much WGNA may or may not listen to users. Some game designers like to rely on users for some things, some game designers hate their users, some game designers have elaborate systems to distill user information into something usable. <shrug> People like to talk about Serb doing this or that or whatever, but, I've never met the guy and I have no idea how he operates so I can't really make an accurate informed guess.

 

 

In the end, I just hope we get more statistics out of it. Because who the hell doesn't love in-game statistics?

 

 

1  An EU friend introduced me to this game in October/November of last year. I watched a ton of videos, mainly QuickyBaby streams and Tazilon's stuff and some kid who used the Jeopardy theme music in his videos, for a month or so. When I went on vacation in December I downloaded the game, created an account and started playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think they need to hire a measurement expert. IMO that'd be a waste of money. They can easily read the forums here and cobble together a working formula. 

 

Measurement expertise is cheap. See me and Praetor giving it away for free all the live-long day!

 

It'd be great if they took WN*, or at least the method used to do it across a better selection of data. But executing it would require more stats talent than WG has on staff. Still, they could get a consultant for 20 grand, and still make money if they displayed it such that people bought into the gold = stats myth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trick to making a good rating system is making it really 'unpad-able'

 

meaning the only way to 'pad' it is to just play well and not club seals. WN8 so far seems interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL the current rating systems that can be viewed by other players are.... shit. I doubt I differ too much in skill just from one week to another just depending on what tanks/tank trees I am playing. When I grinded the Hellcat non stop I was obviously ending up with some really good WN7 as that is a tank which is really benefiting from the WN7 formula. Playing slow and under performing tanks at, lets say, tier 8 will give me a much worse WN7 despite me being at the same top percentage as I was in with a WN7 wise overperforming tank. So, does that make me a worse player now that I actually had to grind through a tank which is far from optimal for getting WN7. Not a chance. WN7 might be a fair measurement if you compare it tank per tank to other players WN7's in these specific tanks.

 

This whole post was excellent points, but this is the part that sticks out to me.

 

I don't like how when I play, I feel more like I'm just abusing what I know pads out WN7 rather than playing I want to really play. For example, I love playing my Comet, but due its nature I find it difficult and inconsistent to score high WN7 with it. The Hellcat and T49 on the other hand both lend themselves very well to the way that WN7 values kills and damage. I really like those two tanks, don't get me wrong, and it's not like I'm not "accidentally" winning games in the process of indirectly padding my stats, but it still feels like I'm exploiting a loophole more than just playing well.

 

I can think of many examples where playing well in a certain tank doesn't reward you with a high WN7 because frankly that tank sucks and/or just doesn't lend itself to high WN7 scores. The T-44 and Centurion Mk.1 are a couple examples for me because I just have a very hard time racking up the >2 kills or the exorbitant amounts of damage required for a high WN7 rating. Consequently I don't play those tanks much because I know they just aren't going to reward me with high numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Good players will figure out what improves the rating, and focus on those areas.

I actually think it'll be better than anything we have, simply because they have access to everything while we have to make do with table scraps. XP is the fundamental basis for the game, and I haven't heard of any particular problems with the xp and credit earning balance. It's not usable for us because we can't differentiate between premium and non-premium accounts; if it weren't for that I'm not sure any of these rating systems would exist. Add in some correction for platoons, exclusion of CW and possibly TC, and it would be really hard to make something that is worse than what we already have.

 

1. example - "its new"       http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/273577-arty-xp-nerf-ridiculous/

 

2. example - you get more XP for doing the same amount of damage fighting the enemy from 20m than from 420m. That is especially retarded in case of tanks with good viewrange/camo. WG is rewarding idiocy in that case - "close comabt bonus". Of corse you have to spot the enemy yourself from 420m, otherwise its ok to share XP/credits with the spotter.

 

 

 

But, will they actually base matchmaking around it?

 

Seems a little silly for them to come out with their own rating system if they don't tie it to something, unless they're really that upset by players coming up with their own metrics for performance.

 

 

Personally I wouldnt be suprised if ftr or  an other site would publish an article about damage/pen rolls depending on certain performance numbers of players. Fact is WG already has a system ingame that gives players who are at low health bonuses on saveing throws in regards to (non)hit, (non)pen and (low) damage. That resulted in the increased amount of 1% tanks driving around after release 2011 and a whine that happend afterwards in a EU forum thread, caused OL to confirm back than, that here is something in place. He didnt give any specifics ofc. Sadly I m unable to find OLs post, prolly it got deleted together with the thread like many things in EU-Forum that explored things WG didnt want explored (see Snibs serverstats).

 

I can give numbers but these are not from a Dev but from a source near WG. Its roughly +20% on saving throws, if the tank is at ~5% HP or below.

 

If there is already anything regarding MM inplemented? I doubt it ... .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. example - you get more XP for doing the same amount of damage fighting the enemy from 20m than from 420m. That is especially retarded in case of tanks with good viewrange/camo. WG is rewarding idiocy in that case - "close comabt bonus". Of corse you have to spot the enemy yourself from 420m, otherwise its ok to share XP/credits with the spotter.

 

On the other hand, consistently surviving and doing damage at close ranges puts you at greater risk than doing damage at extreme ranges where the enemy can't see you, so you should get more reward for doing it.

 

Tying increasing risk and reward together is a basic principle of game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the other hand, consistently surviving and doing damage at close ranges puts you at greater risk than doing damage at extreme ranges where the enemy can't see you, so you should get more reward for doing it.

...

 

 

That might be the case with some heavies but even for them its stupid if they have the viewrange advantage. I m driving for example with optics on my KT, E5 and Löwe. Why should I get close and personal with an enemy IS3 (350m viewrange) and take damage myself, get spotted, shot at by arti and TDs, when I can destroy him from outside his viewrange ... idiocy and WG is rewarding it.

 

In RL as a soldier you also exploit every weakness you know your enemy has. Why should you fight on his terms - it just gets u killed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That might be the case with some heavies but even for them its stupid if they have the viewrange advantage. I m driving for example with optics on my KT, E5 and Löwe. Why should I get close and personal with an enemy IS3 (350m viewrange) and take damage myself, get spotted, shot at by arti and TDs, when I can destroy him from outside his viewrange ... idiocy and WG is rewarding it.

 

In RL as a soldier you also exploit every weakness you know your enemy has. Why should you fight on his terms - it just gets u killed!

 

Because is just a game? Play for fun #YOLO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WG plans like any company is to make money, that means in a free2play game to find a way to make people open their wallet.

I hope there won't be any advantage given to premiums accounts to their new WG stats.

That's why WG won't give raw xp for WN* counting - I guess.

 

Actually, I didn't pay one euro to play this game, that's why I progress slowly in the tiers tree, but I'm not in a hurry to go to tier X, as I still have to improve my gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my Personal Rating on the test server is 2,016. By way of explanation all it says is

 

"Personal Rating is a measure of a player's mastery, on the basis of:

 

- Battles

- Victories

- Battles Survived

- Hits

- Average Damage per Battle

- Average Experience per Battle."

 

Take with however many grains of salt you wish

 

s

 

UzzaWqU.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to gain insight into the new system.  Running a comparison between myself and the feline seabug.

 

CvD1_zpsdbbf79c9.jpg

 

In WN7, Crab beats me.  In WG, I come out ahead.

 

His advantages:  Hit rate(! Most important stat!), Masteries, Avg. XP, Win rate

My advantages:  Battles, Avg. Dmg, Max XP

 

Though we're close on this screen, my higher battle count and higher average damage seem to outweigh his greater average xp and win rate.

 

CvD2_zps5ef8f110.jpg

 

The second page demonstrates why Crab probably should have a higher rating than me.  Better survival, better DD:DR, better kill rate.  This forces me to question the WG system.

 

Some other notables:

 

Marxist (High volume, top ~200 GR, ~1700 WN7, low tier player) 6446

Zakaladas  (Medium volume, top 10 GR, #1 WN7 (2623), well respected soloist)  11382

camador  (Low volume, top 100 GR, #2 WN7 (2559)) 9322

hammer91 (Med-high volume, former #1 GR (11 now), #9 WN7 (2419)) 10868

Kewei (Med-low volume, top 120 GR, top 100 WN7, celebrated damage farmer and penis connoisseur) 10179

Badimir_Lenin  (Immensely low volume, due to the fact that he has already become a legend) 10

BanzaiBonsai  (Low volume, immensely high stat reroll) 6173

SamJax (Extreme volume, #3 GR, good WN7 (~1600), good example of high volume, good play)  7665

 

So, what does this mean?  It seems volume still has some influence.  Consider Zak, cama and hammer.  Camador's stats rival or exceed those of the other two, but he is 1-2000 points behind.  It can only be due to his low volume of games played.  Volume isn't the be all, end all though, as it was with GR.  SAMJAX only beats me by ~100.  I have better quality stats, he has better volume stats.  And Marxist, a high volume seal clubber, trails me by a thousand.  Still, volume is important.  Banz's averages are sky high, but his low volume places him fairly low.

 

Oh, and did you notice the Japanese flag?  Seems that line is close enough that WG is including it in their UI.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wargaming is so afraid to offend their players by saying they are bad that they are trying to push the notion that "if you play more games, you get better". They include battle count in their rating even though battle count gets completely irrelevant as soon as the player reaches a battle count where his stats are statistically significant (which is not that many, around 2000 should do it).

 

They are so paranoid about PR and so addicted to money that there is no hope of them ever coming up with a good system, because that would be offending a large portion of their player base. Of course they want their players to think that by playing more battles they'll end up better. The more battles they play, the more money Wargaming makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wargaming is so afraid to offend their players by saying they are bad that they are trying to push the notion that "if you play more games, you get better". They include battle count in their rating even though battle count gets completely irrelevant as soon as the player reaches a battle count where his stats are statistically significant (which is not that many, around 2000 should do it).

 

They are so paranoid about PR and so addicted to money that there is no hope of them ever coming up with a good system, because that would be offending a large portion of their player base. Of course they want their players to think that by playing more battles they'll end up better. The more battles they play, the more money Wargaming makes.

 

Not necessarily.  I looked up Definder, highest number of battles on this server, but red secondary stats.  2459.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unlikely that the rating is just a composite of the stats that are shown on that window, so there are other factors that could be leading to the difference other than battles played.

It looks like wotlabs hasn't been tracking camador's stats so I can't do a great comparison. I'll try to pull some numbers for that account to compare.

* Playing stock vs. non-stock tanks

Unlikely, since they would have to track this historically.

* Performance compared to peers

Possible. Would go a long way towards limiting the impact of OP tanks, although the next statpad target would be tanks that pubbies do poorly in.

* Solo/TC/platoon performance

Possible.

* Recent performance vs historical performance

Giving greater weight to more recent performance over previous performance (aka 24h/7d/60d metrics) would both encourage players to keep playing and be more meaningful than historical performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys explain how you know battle count is part of the equation?  FTR stated that WG would not be explaining the formula.  

 

Read the thread.

 

Specifically, my post a little bit ago where several players were compared.

 

We don't know the exact formulas, but through comparison, we can formulate factors that fit the results.  Might prove to be wrong, but they're the best we have for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys explain how you know battle count is part of the equation?  FTR stated that WG would not be explaining the formula.

from deusmortis's screenies you can see the new rating framed by 8 other stats, the implication being that they constitute the PR rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its entire possible that the influence of battles is near-ignorable (or caps at a reasonable amount).

 

I think it more likely that that influence is more multiplicative than additive.  Players with far more battles than I, but worse stats, have much worse scores. 

Share this post


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.

Guest
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...