Jump to content


www.NoobMeter.com - WoT performance rating (player comparison tool)

performance efficiency rating comparison tool noobmeter www.noobmeter.com

  • Please log in to reply
1850 replies to this topic

NoobMeter #1 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 15:58

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

*
POPULAR

Update 23-Jan - added support for WN6 rating.

Also for whoever has a long battle history in the database now the PR for last ~1000 battles appears as well in the profile.

Also there is now signature support for registered players, and automatic nightly updates of stats for registered players with a linked WoT account.


Update 5-Jan - Moved NoobMeter to new server.

New feature -  Inputting two or three names (delimited by commas, spaces, whatever) brings up a comparison screen.

Update 23 Dec - scatter charts for clans.

Update 20-Dec: Added more kinds of server top lists. Also tried to make sure users with US locale get NA server in dropdown by default, not sure if succeeded.

Update 18-Dec: added graphs in player and recent result pages if enough data is available

Update 16-Dec: added initial support for viewing your recent results in slightly more detail (if it is available in database).

Update 12-Dec - Added viewing by clan (only for players in DB / viewed since clan viewing was added).

Update 01-Dec: Added "Server Top" feature (from players updated in the database).

Update 24-Nov: Now showing Performance Rating for recent battles for those players who have at least 25 of them in the database. Due to sample size, of course, results can vary.

Update 20-Nov: new version deployed with:
  • Significantly lowered impact of winrate compared to damage
  • Completely rewritten / improved / largely eliminated "penalties" mechanism
  • Now showing rating descriptions in results screen (subject to change)
Update 11-Dec: New version in, fixes some issues with people's alt accounts getting to top of server list fairly easily. Should not have no impact whatsoever on most peoples ratings.

Greetings,

We've developed an early version of performance rating, and it's available at

http://www.noobmeter.com/

Remember to pick "NA" server in drop-down for results for this server.

Q. What is this?
A. This site calculates the "performance rating" for the World of Tanks players you specify.
It is currently in alpha stage (early release).

Q. What is the performance rating?
A. It is a calculated value assessing the player skill, based on an assessment of the tanks the player is playing, the damage dealt (considering tanks played!) and the win rate.

Q. How is the performance rating better than efficiency rating?
A. It is a more accurate assessment of player skill, as it focuses on two values which are hard to boost together - damage dealt, and win rate (CW/TC can boost win rate but will lower damage dealt). A player generally cannot improve these two values without directly helping his team, thus there is no way to selfishly inflate the performance rating values.

Q. What are the issues with efficiency rating?
A. Efficiency rating is flawed in many ways and allows players to boost it if they focus on simply doing things which increase the efficiency rating.
In particular, it over-values capping and initial spotting, and players who mostly worry about efficiency rating ruin games for others by 'ninja-capping' or 'suicide-spotting'.
For example, a player  on the EU server has the absurd efficiency rating of 16,505 attained in exactly one battle in a 'loltractor'. Such examples are plenty.

Q: Many players with high efficiency rating also have a high performance rating, so what is the point?
A: Good players that care for their team and help winning have both high efficiency rating and performance rating. Only players who artificially boost their efficiency without helping their team get a lower performance rating.
So for the majority of players these two values will indeed correlate.

Also note that the scales of ER and PR are different (see below)!

Q. Can you publish the exact formula for performance rating?
A. Not at this point. It is a complex algorithm, not a formula, so would involve publishing the source code.

However, the main things it looks at are:
  • What damage have you done? This has the most impact, and is evaluated considering what tanks/tiers are played.
  • What is your win-rate?
It also does some adjustments in case of very low number of battles played and other special cases.

Q. I think the performance rating of player X is wrong, it should be higher/lower.
A. Please post the player name in this discussion thread and we will evaluate.

Q. What are some general guidelines for evaluating performance rating?
A. In general, although these may be reevaluated later:
  • Less than 1150 - bad player
  • 1150 to 1250 - below average player
  • 1250 to 1450 - average player
  • 1450 to 1750 - good player
  • 1850 to 1950 - great player
  • 1950 to 2000 - excellent player
  • More than 2000 - "Unicum"
Q. Can you add parameter X to the performance rating?
A. WarGaming only publishes a limited set of data to their web site, which limits the options. Of these, we have chosen the parameters that are the most relevant to evaluating player performance, and ignored others such as initial spotting, cap points and average experience as they are either too easy to boost or are too inconsistent (e.g., depend on presence of premium account).

Q. Why are you not including kills per battle?

A. Kills are sufficiently accounted for in damage and winrate. Any kill helpful to the battle effort will indirectly raise the winrate and any kill by definition increases damage.

It just introduces another variable to muddle things up for no great advantage. And it could encourage someone to actively kill-steal.

Q. Why are you not including defence points?

A. Any defence helpful to the battle effort will indirectly raise the winrate, and is thus already accounted for in the rating.

Including it could encourage people to "farm" defence points by waiting for enemy to cap longer before resetting if the situation permits doing it safely.

Q. Why are some people so angry in this thread and/or are trolling?

Usually, because their performance rating is lower than they believe they deserve. And usually that is because they have gamed / boosted their efficiency rating.


We'll be very interested to hear your comments!

pauli #2 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:01

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 19161 battles
  • 1,661
  • [NUGGS] NUGGS
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
Your system is broken - it claims I'm a good player, and that's clearly a load of garbage.

(props for setting up another neat tool to play with)

Edited by pauli, Nov 19 2012 - 16:08.


Blackgunner #3 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:04

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2471 battles
  • 125
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011
I put little faith in anything from someone with 1 post... and 9 battles.  At the time.

Edited by Blackgunner, Nov 19 2012 - 16:04.


thejoker91 #4 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:04

    Major

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

View Postpauli, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:01, said:

Your system is broken - it claims I'm a good player, and that's clearly a load of garbage.

It would be if the average player didnt suck so bad.

JazzyBanny #5 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10379 battles
  • 365
  • [MGL-A] MGL-A
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Performance rating:  1,591
Efficiency rating:  1,578
this means im normal?

Misfire42 #6 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:05

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 7807 battles
  • 4,108
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012
Hmmm. I like this, at least. This says I'm average, when I have average win rate and bad efficiency. Works for me.

Blackgunner #7 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:05

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2471 battles
  • 125
  • Member since:
    01-12-2011
No.  That means you play World of Tanks.

NoobMeter #8 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostBlackgunner, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:04, said:

I put little faith in anything from someone with 1 post... and 9 battles.  At the time.
That's very nice but I probably have about 17,000 battles across my accounts.

That being said, I do indeed only have 9 on the North American server (all done today). I hope you don't hold that against me, my ping is better on the EU server.

NeboCema #9 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20086 battles
  • 1,522
  • [RUSS] RUSS
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011
seems like a good tool but again it's not a detailed and cannot be used as an accurate determination of skill - good work tough + 1

arag0n78 #10 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:11

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7371 battles
  • 80
  • Member since:
    08-10-2011
Performance rating: 1,793
Efficiency rating: 1,712

Staz211 #11 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 18388 battles
  • 2,375
  • [REL_3] REL_3
  • Member since:
    06-11-2012
I'm a good player!  :Smile_glasses:

Serious question though: is there a way that you can make another version that calculates this based on your last 30 days of playing? I'm curious to see how my rating looks when it isn't weighed down by my terribad "what's this cool free to play game? Imma run around and kill stuff!" beginner stats, ha

TheSeaFox #12 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9693 battles
  • 17
  • [TFO] TFO
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011
I'll be watching this for further devolpments.

NoobMeter #13 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostNeboCema, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:07, said:

seems like a good tool but again it's not a detailed and cannot be used as an accurate determination of skill - good work tough + 1
Basically we're limited in what Wargaming provide over the web (there is more statistics available in the game but it is not accessible programmatically).

Accurate is a "relative" term - of course platooning with someone and finding out how he plays, and how well he works in a team with you is better; but this is IMHO more accurate than the alternative ratings.

KingBlueDevil #14 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 26678 battles
  • 2,973
  • [P5YCH] P5YCH
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011
Efficiency Rating: 1425
Performance Rating: 1467

One question:
I like how it factors average XP but does it take into account premium vs. non premium (normalized) XP?

hankbukowsi #15 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9132 battles
  • 1,023
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
Explain why this is better than just looking at a person's win rate on individual tanks and comparing that to the average win rate on those tanks.

NoobMeter #16 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostStaz211, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:12, said:

Serious question though: is there a way that you can make another version that calculates this based on your last 30 days of playing? I'm curious to see how my rating looks when it isn't weighed down by my terribad "what's this cool free to play game? Imma run around and kill stuff!" beginner stats, ha
Yes, it is possible and eventually on my TODO list - if the project stays popular.

razzi123 #17 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,881
  • [FUR-E] FUR-E
  • Member since:
    12-13-2011
These stat need to be shifted in this way

Poor players= below 700

Below average player=700-900

Average= 900-1100

Above average= 1100-1300

Good= 1300-1500

Great=1500-1700

Unicum= 1700+

The majority of Na players is between 900 and 1100

NoobMeter #18 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostKingBlueDevil, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:13, said:

One question:
I like how it factors average XP but does it take into account premium vs. non premium (normalized) XP?
Actually it ignores average XP completely - exactly because there is no way to account for premium vs non premium in the WG web interface.

KingBlueDevil #19 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 26678 battles
  • 2,973
  • [P5YCH] P5YCH
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011

View PostNoobMeter, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:15, said:

Actually it ignores average XP completely - exactly because there is no way to account for premium vs non premium in the WG web interface.

Oh, it makes it look like it factors in average XP as it shows it on the page, never mind.

Great work tho :)

NoobMeter #20 Posted Nov 19 2012 - 16:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View Posthankbukowsi, on Nov 19 2012 - 16:14, said:

Explain why this is better than just looking at a person's win rate on individual tanks and comparing that to the average win rate on those tanks.
a) This is faster; if you only have a few seconds to assess someone (e.g., you are a recruiter for a large clan which gets lots of applications) then you can run this in these few seconds; looking up individual tanks, then looking up average winrates on those tanks takes way more time

b) It is possible to "boost" average winrate through TC/CW, however that generally destroys average damage stats (as all the other good players you play TC/CW with will do the damage you would have otherwise done). Basically, you can either boost damage at expense of winrate (playing solo randoms well), or you can boost winrate at expense of damage (playing TC/CW in great teams). It is largely not possible to do both.

Hence just looking at winrates is not optimal.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users