Jump to content


How can 58% of players be "below average"?

efficiency wot-news

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
120 replies to this topic

rudejohn #1 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14614 battles
  • 401
  • Member since:
    03-20-2012
I was looking up my efficiency rating for fun (it's not stellar) and reading the scale next to it and I was curious... it says 48% of players are "below average" and 10% of players are "bad" (presumably far below average).
http://wot-news.com/...p/stat/calc/en/

I'm not a statistician nor math wizard, but how is it that 58% of players are "below average"? I'm presuming in this case that "average" does not equal "mean" nor "median," because if it did there should be the same number of players in the "good," "great," and "unicum" categories as there are in "bad" and "below average".  Instead, the scale is 58% - 32% - 10%.

From the site:
Table of efficiency rating values less than 600 Bad players (~ 10%) 600 - 900 Players below average (-48%) 900-1200 Average players (~ 32%) 1200-1500 Good players (~ 8%) 1500-1800 Great players (~ 1.9%) more 1800 Unicums (~ 0,1%)

I know the answer is probably "it's an arbitrary scale," but what gives on making it so incredibly skewed?

Thanks in advance,

~rj

rinying #2 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 11134 battles
  • 5,746
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011

View Postrudejohn, on Jun 28 2012 - 18:27, said:

I was looking up my efficiency rating for fun (it's not stellar) and reading the scale next to it and I was curious... it says 48% of players are "below average" and 10% of players are "bad" (presumably far below average).
http://wot-news.com/...p/stat/calc/en/

I'm not a statistician nor math wizard, but how is it that 58% of players are "below average"? I'm presuming in this case that "average" does not equal "mean" nor "median," because if it did there should be the same number of players in the "good," "great," and "unicum" categories as there are in "bad" and "below average".  Instead, the scale is 58% - 32% - 10%.

From the site:
Table of efficiency rating values less than 600 Bad players (~ 10%) 600 - 900 Players below average (-48%) 900-1200 Average players (~ 32%) 1200-1500 Good players (~ 8%) 1500-1800 Great players (~ 1.9%) more 1800 Unicums (~ 0,1%)

I know the answer is probably "it's an arbitrary scale," but what gives on making it so incredibly skewed?

Thanks in advance,

~rj
i honestly dont know, i guess the maker of the efficiency rating screwed up somewhere.

HighanDry #3 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6815 battles
  • 434
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
I'm guessing they mean they're performing below average.

Average in terms of skill level, not how people actually fit that criteria.. if that makes sense.

Theoretically 100% people could be below average, bad players in this case.

Potoroo #4 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 16592 battles
  • 3,551
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View Postrinying, on Jun 28 2012 - 18:30, said:

i honestly dont know, i guess the maker of the efficiency rating screwed up somewhere.

That's a given. The efficiency rating is severely flawed.

Gohibniu #5 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 40220 battles
  • 4,642
  • [BR4WL] BR4WL
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
Perhaps 10% is a subset of 48%

Cybergod #6 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:32

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18287 battles
  • 3,383
  • [DERP] DERP
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
Sounds about right servers full of epic fail. It's a truly higher number though. Once you add stat padders and 100% platoon who might have a decent WR but no Eff.. I believe it's closer to 75% of the server is mediocre to on the verge of epic fail.

Savage281 #7 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9226 battles
  • 1,370
  • Member since:
    02-16-2012
huh, i never knew about that site... and... im only AVERAGE?!?! RAGE!!! na looking at my stats thats about right. i only in the last 2 months got "good" at this game lol...

anyways, idk if they are guessing thats what it will be or if they actually know, but if you play pubs you should know thats probably about right lol...

Vorpal #8 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:35

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7910 battles
  • 2,814
  • Member since:
    08-10-2010
The 'average' player should win as many games as he loses.

I have no trouble believing that more than half of players lose more than they win: it just means there is a smaller subset of players that wins more than their 'faire share' of games.

dvang #9 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:36

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14333 battles
  • 767
  • Member since:
    08-26-2011
By "average", I expect that they are meaning an efficiency value/range.  "Average" is an efficiency value between 900-1200. So, 58% of players might be below the range that was determined to be "average".  It is the range itself that is "average", not the number of people in the range.  I have no idea how that actual value/range was originally determined to be average.

Think of it as similar to school letter grades.
A, B, C, D, E, F

C is considered the "average" grade. Still, more than 50% of the students might have grades below C (i.e. D, E, or F), thus they will be "below average", even though they are the majority of the students.

Bucktard #10 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:36

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 20339 battles
  • 776
  • [-_T_-] -_T_-
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
For the most part, expecting 15 random people with about 30 seconds to form a unit to do well anywhere near 50% of the time is an epic fail of the thought process.

Khelen #11 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10126 battles
  • 377
  • [T-N-E] T-N-E
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
The percentage shows how much of a ratio of players have certain efficiency rate.
What I mean by that is,

It's pretty much like this:

10% of all the WoT accounts are at the efficiency of : below 600
48% of all the WoT accounts are at the efficiency of : 600-900
etc.

To make it simpler, don't call it "below average" call is better than "Bad" but worse that "average."

Edited by Khelen, Jun 28 2012 - 18:39.


Sparater #12 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8299 battles
  • 1,085
  • Member since:
    05-22-2011

View Postdvang, on Jun 28 2012 - 18:36, said:

By "average", I expect that they are meaning an efficiency value/range.  "Average" is an efficiency value between 900-1200. So, 58% of players might be below the range that was determined to be "average".  It is the range itself that is "average", not the number of people in the range.  I have no idea how that actual value/range was originally determined to be average.

Think of it as similar to school letter grades.
A, B, C, D, E, F

C is considered the "average" grade. Still, more than 50% of the students might have grades below C (i.e. D, E, or F), thus they will be "below average", even though they are the majority of the students.

This is what I'm thinking. For example, let's say on a test getting 50% is average. And 58% of the PEOPLE that took the test get under 50%, then they are all below average

MaxMike #13 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 16349 battles
  • 3,433
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011
It is a arbitrary scale, opinion of what is or is not average.

Wind2008 #14 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5700 battles
  • 443
  • [E-WAR] E-WAR
  • Member since:
    01-20-2012
It means below the efficiency average(1 player has 100, one player has 200, the average is 150) not below the average individual player. Having a gap like that pretty much means there are more players that are either extremely bad or extremely good at the game(by the efficiency calculator's judgement) than there are people who fall in the middle.

Or that's what I got from it. After looking at the many people who were faster than me the posts saying it's just the guy's opinion of what an average player is like that makes sense too.

Edited by Wind2008, Jun 28 2012 - 18:44.


Cybergod #15 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18287 battles
  • 3,383
  • [DERP] DERP
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
Post about stats where is Garbad when you need him.

ed_anger #16 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13764 battles
  • 7,589
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    07-01-2010

View PostBucktard, on Jun 28 2012 - 18:36, said:

For the most part, expecting 15 random people with about 30 seconds to form a unit to do well anywhere near 50% of the time is an epic fail of the thought process.

you realize the same thing happens to both sides, right? one side is going to win by being less incompetent (except for the tiny number of draws).

View Postprecambrian, on Jun 28 2012 - 18:40, said:

I define average as pulling one's weight in a match, no more and no less, while good players could influence the match in their favor and great players could carry teams. 58% of people are "below average" in that regard. Then again, this opens up the debate on what specifically is considered "pulling one's weight."

same. if you win 49% of the time, and draw 2%, then you are at least not hurting your team.

precambrian #17 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:40

    Captain

  • WGLNA Gold League Player
  • 16655 battles
  • 1,268
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
I define average as pulling one's weight in a match, no more and no less, while good players could influence the match in their favor and great players could carry teams. 58% of people are "below average" in that regard. Then again, this opens up the debate on what specifically is considered "pulling one's weight."

Cybergod #18 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18287 battles
  • 3,383
  • [DERP] DERP
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
Or his he like the Candyman and have to say his name 3 times..


Garbad
Garbad..........................................................................................................
























Garbad :Smile-hiding:

ArchMadman #19 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5406 battles
  • 880
  • Member since:
    03-21-2011
according to the thing im in the 8% for good players, im satisfied

thejoker91 #20 Posted Jun 28 2012 - 18:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13798 battles
  • 5,571
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    09-23-2010
Because efficiency sucks?