Feature Discussion - Comparing Players based on Average Damage

[AdrianK 588]

I recently got a request from @Va1heru and @Saffee about something that can be used to compare player performance, and I wanted to open up the discussion here to get more perspectives from the wider community.

The idea is to base the comparison on average damage dealt per game, rather than WN8 which many people (rightly or wrongly see as flawed - this thread is not about that).  They also pointed out the website https://www.dpgwhores.com/about/ as the kind of concept they had in mind.  They suggested looking only at tier 8+ tanks, excluding clicker scumbags spgs.

Let me lay out the solution I have in mind, and some of the questions I have for you, the community.

Context

• I'd plan to build the feature into Lorp - because it would give people the flexibility to do the analysis they wanted to do, and it would shift the burden of gathering the data to their desktops (which is free) as opposed to a hosted website like MM-RNG-Luck which might cost me money.
• Using Lorp, users would be able to (on demand) get the per-tank stats for any list of players, allowing you to compare their performance, rather than rely on a website to do it for them.
• DPG Whores is great - but at the moment it only covers EU and NA (Va1, Saff and I are all on the Asia server).  

Proposed Solution

• A screen that lists the best players of a given tank, by avg damage per game (overall - not "recents")
• Data would include: Players name and account number (so could hyperlink to their WG profile online), region (Asia, EU, RU, NA), Tank (with a link to it's MM-RNG-Luck profile page), overall average damage, WN8, WR, K/D, battle count, date lasted updated (i.e. when their performance was last checked).  Also, the HoF avg damage (more on that in a minute).
• MM-RNG-Luck would provide list(s) of "good" players (via an API call); Lorp would gather performance stats for these players (more on that in a minute).
• The source of players is a combination of (a) the top 100 HoF players, overall by region (so 400 in total), by avg damage; plus (b) the best 30 players per region for a specific tank (120 in total, per tank), plus (c) any other players the user is tracking in Lorp (such as themselves, alt's, clan mates, etc).

Specific Aspects for Community Input

You can feedback on anything, but these are the points that I'd most like input on.

#1 which players?

The biggest issue is sourcing a list of "good" players.  WG currently don't offer an official API that third-party developers (such as myself) can call.  Without boring you with the detail, I can fetch data from the WG Hall of Fame (HoF).  This is a semi-manual process.  I can get the best players overall (by avg damage) and the best players of a given tank.  Because it's manual I would not do all 227+ tier 8+ tanks, but could do a suite of popular tanks, plus any other tanks on request.

As described above I'd get: (a) the top 100 HoF players, overall by region (so 400 in total), by avg damage; plus (b) the best 30 players per region for a specific tank (120 in total, per tank).  So for a given tank you could draw on a user population that was potentially as large as 520 players, plus anyone else you were following in the Lorp app.

#2 Sync Options

As a user you have ~520 players you can get perf data for - but which ones would you want to check?  The considerations are: (a) how long it takes to sync, (b) how much data is actually useful, (c) which data is most useful.

Grabbling the top 30 (x4) players of a specific tank is obvious if you're interested in that tank, but the way the HoF works means that you have to qualify with a minimum number of games in a certain period, so it will exclude "good" players who haven't played it recently. 

Grabbling the top 100 (x4) overall players sounds like a good idea, but there's no guarantee that of those 400 players all of them actually play the tank in question.

So one of the questions is how flexible to make the sync option.  Option could include:

1. Scoping by region: all or any specific combination
2. How many players from the overall list vs how many form the tank list
3. Top X number of players from all regions vs top X from each region evenly?

 

[hiipanda 299]

Would it be able to use assist?

[AdrianK 588]

33 minutes ago, hiipanda said:

Would it be able to use assist?

The HoF seems to provide assisted damage, so potentially yes - it would complicate gathering the data - let me check

BUT - in terms of the performance data that Lorp can currently get from the WG API for tank performance, no.  I'll check the API again but I'm pretty sure assisted is not provided.

[monjardin 1,011]

13 hours ago, hiipanda said:

Would it be able to use assist?

They've added stun assistance from clicking to the statistics for random battles, but not radio or track assistance.

[PlanetaryGenocide 668]

14 hours ago, monjardin said:

They've added stun assistance from clicking to the statistics for random battles, but not radio or track assistance.

[AdrianK 588]

I have a working prototype now, here's the sort of report I can pull together...

1. "O Rank" = the players rank on the WG official HoF - overvall by avg damage.
2. "T Rank" = the players rank on the HoF for the tank in question (which in this example is the 113).
3. "Perf" is a reference to the players overall performance data for that tank - NOT the performance based on what the HoF is tracking.
4. HoF data is either white or blue; white = data from the tank specific HoF, blue is from the HoF overall by avg damage.

The data includes the "best" players of a tank from the HoF for that tank, by avg dmg dealt + the best overall players who also happen to play the tank (which we know because we are able to get "perf" data for them for the tank.

I've included the overall HoF data (in blue) for comparison only.  For example see BepHu_6a6Ku_CA6A... he/she does:

• 113 stats overall - 4726 avg dmg
• 113 stats as tracked by the HoF (which will be a subset of the latest games) - 4660 avg dmg
• Overall performance in all tanks, as tracked by the HoF - 4417 avg dmg

For this we can conclude that BepHu_6a6Ku_CA6A on average does better in the 113, and hasn't been performing as well recently given the overall performance is better than the HoF.

HoF includes assisted damage, so have included it as well.  Cheers @hiipanda

The two screenies below show the same data by sorted differently: by Perf Avg Dmg, and by HoF rank for the tank (which I need to do further sorting on by the looks of it).

 

@Va1heru FYI.

 

Discuss... Suggestions...

 

 

[Va1heru 1,725]

2 hours ago, AdrianK said:

I have a working prototype now, here's the sort of report I can pull together...

1. "O Rank" = the players rank on the WG official HoF - overvall by avg damage.
2. "T Rank" = the players rank on the HoF for the tank in question (which in this example is the 113).
3. "Perf" is a reference to the players overall performance data for that tank - NOT the performance based on what the HoF is tracking.
4. HoF data is either white or blue; white = data from the tank specific HoF, blue is from the HoF overall by avg damage.

The data includes the "best" players of a tank from the HoF for that tank, by avg dmg dealt + the best overall players who also happen to play the tank (which we know because we are able to get "perf" data for them for the tank.

I've included the overall HoF data (in blue) for comparison only.  For example see BepHu_6a6Ku_CA6A... he/she does:

• 113 stats overall - 4726 avg dmg
• 113 stats as tracked by the HoF (which will be a subset of the latest games) - 4660 avg dmg
• Overall performance in all tanks, as tracked by the HoF - 4417 avg dmg

For this we can conclude that BepHu_6a6Ku_CA6A on average does better in the 113, and hasn't been performing as well recently given the overall performance is better than the HoF.

HoF includes assisted damage, so have included it as well.  Cheers @hiipanda

The two screenies below show the same data by sorted differently: by Perf Avg Dmg, and by HoF rank for the tank (which I need to do further sorting on by the looks of it).

 

@Va1heru FYI.

 

Discuss... Suggestions...

 

 

Looks really good so far mate. As long as I can sort by each individual ranking at the top, ie, Click orank and it shows #1 orank descending and so on. 

2 things, will I be able to filter out players with low amounts of battle's? So as not to have the #1 players be a random 8k DMG game but only 1 battle played.

And, Is there a way to include whether a person has 3 marked a tank as well? Just a 3 mark symbol in another tab similar to what wotzilla has on their stats page's?

[AdrianK 588]

Marks of excellence - I'd have to find a data source for that, does any body know of one? Preferably some I can call via an API?

[monjardin 1,011]

1 hour ago, AdrianK said:

Marks of excellence - I'd have to find a data source for that, does any body know of one? Preferably some I can call via an API?

It's the "marksOnGun" field in the "achievements" associative array from the "vehicle achievements" API request. It's not spelled out in the documentation, but I'm seeing it in test requests.

 

[AdrianK 588]

On 2/20/2018 at 2:55 PM, monjardin said:

It's the "marksOnGun" field in the "achievements" associative array from the "vehicle achievements" API request. It's not spelled out in the documentation, but I'm seeing it in test requests.

 

Unfortunately marksOnGun appears to be part of the data that requires an access token.

[monjardin 1,011]

2 hours ago, AdrianK said:

Unfortunately marksOnGun appears to be part of the data that requires an access token.

Well, that sucks.