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
1849 replies to this topic

VaporGator #1481 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 05:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9520 battles
  • 809
  • [5PANZ] 5PANZ
  • Member since:
    09-19-2011

View PostItaliax, on Mar 31 2013 - 04:28, said:

Nice attitude, way to go!

People need to understand that majority of so called 'unicums' rerolled at least once in their WoT career, starting on completely fresh accounts after going through the learning curve, joining good clans etc, All of that extensive knowledge about the game mechanics, experience, skipping a lot of real stinkers via free XP conversion, never playing stock tanks and access to good players to platoon with allowed them to achieve such good stats.

I have awful overall stats on my account because I never rerolled, nor have I ever spent any gold to convert XP, played stock tanks, have not platooned once. However, if I go to noobmeter.com it shows that I have 57% w/r and 2000+ efficiency playing solo etc. in the last ~1000 battles. Does that mean I'm a good player? Hell no! I have not played a single stock or junk tank in the last 1000 battles, that's all. Then when I take a look at some purple accounts what I see? A couple of premium tanks and cherry picked OP tanks with a bunch of platoon achievements.

Moral of the story, stop worrying about your stats and QQ on the forum, go watch some good replays on youtube or wotreplays instead.

Stats are fun, but those who are stat whores are not.   A fine line between them.  Re-rolls should be ignored in stats, unless we drop the overall stat that penalizes many for keeping their long history/learning curve stats.  I don't see how it is relevant anyways what anyone did a year or two ago... 60 days, or 1,000 battles is all the matters... at most.

theMoP #1482 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 05:42

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 24652 battles
  • 207
  • [REL_2] REL_2
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012

View PostBanzaiBonsai, on Mar 29 2013 - 21:06, said:

You have a 50% W/R and you are average (by a good players standards that means terribad).

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!

I'm a ~50%er, and...that's...ok.

BanzaiBonsai #1483 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 06:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 5933 battles
  • 1,698
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostItaliax, on Mar 31 2013 - 04:28, said:

Nice attitude, way to go!

People need to understand that majority of so called 'unicums' rerolled at least once in their WoT career, starting on completely fresh accounts after going through the learning curve, joining good clans etc, All of that extensive knowledge about the game mechanics, experience, skipping a lot of real stinkers via free XP conversion, never playing stock tanks and access to good players to platoon with allowed them to achieve such good stats.

I have awful overall stats on my account because I never rerolled, nor have I ever spent any gold to convert XP, played stock tanks, have not platooned once. However, if I go to noobmeter.com it shows that I have 57% w/r and 2000+ efficiency playing solo etc. in the last ~1000 battles. Does that mean I'm a good player? Hell no! I have not played a single stock or junk tank in the last 1000 battles, that's all. Then when I take a look at some purple accounts what I see? A couple of premium tanks and cherry picked OP tanks with a bunch of platoon achievements.

Moral of the story, stop worrying about your stats and QQ on the forum, go watch some good replays on youtube or wotreplays instead.

View PosttheMoP, on Mar 31 2013 - 05:42, said:

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!

I'm a ~50%er, and...that's...ok.

Do you actually read what he wrote?

Part where he goes full retard in bold:

View PostGseriesARFCOM, on Mar 29 2013 - 20:15, said:

I completely agree. The current system is irrelevent to 90+% of WOT players. It is simply not an accurate measure. I routinely place in the top 4 players(Often 1 or 2) on my team but I am rated as a average player. Since I am "Average" That SHOULD mean there are a roughly equal number of players that play better than me and worse then me. In actual gameplay this simply is not true. It's not even close.

He doesn't understand what average means. In this game there are few highly above average players and a ton of slightly below average players.
Then he contuniues to make his own play better than his stats show. He says this rating is not even close, when his stats (to me) say 50% W/R and that (to me) is clearly very close to being average. Rating yourself based on how high in the after battle report doesn't really work for a bunch of battles. I can say that I'm "always at the top" (even though that is not true), there simply is no evidence he is providing that this rating is wrong in  the evaluation of his skill.

That is where I kindly remind him that he is by no means any better than an average player:

View PostBanzaiBonsai, on Mar 29 2013 - 21:06, said:

You have a 50% W/R and you are average (by a good players standards that means terribad).


Then he goes on with this part:

Quote

My guess is the system is intentionally skewed. There simply is no way for typical player to get an above average rating without spending alot of REAL money by purchasing gold rounds, XP, consumables etc.

And that is where my answer is:

Quote

Take your consiracy theories elsewhere.
Get out of this thread. Now.
You know, I don't have anything against average players, but they have to understand that they are average. A player that doesn't understand that and either blames a rating or the game itself is very unlikely to ever improve.

theMoP #1484 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 07:00

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 24652 battles
  • 207
  • [REL_2] REL_2
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012

View PostBanzaiBonsai, on Mar 31 2013 - 06:53, said:

Do you actually read what he wrote?

heh heh, yes... i understand your reply to him...

i just couldn't resist the 'stuart smalley' affirmation

that's where i went 'retard'

have a good one

Tedster59 #1485 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 17:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 30362 battles
  • 3,283
  • [FOXEY] FOXEY
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011
are you getting DDoS'd also?  just got 403 forbiddon errors while trying to access the site.

PostApocalypse #1486 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 17:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7011 battles
  • 698
  • Member since:
    06-14-2012
Seems odd to me that NA server average WN7 is about 807 yet a WN7 score of 899 is labeled as below average.

Winterpwner #1487 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 19:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 5530 battles
  • 9,117
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    03-16-2011

View PostPostApocalypse, on Mar 31 2013 - 17:29, said:

Seems odd to me that NA server average WN7 is about 807 yet a WN7 score of 899 is labeled as below average.

Must be dem newbs that join.

/tinfoil

So I'm labeled as good? Okay then.

NoobMeter #1488 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 20:28

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostTedster59, on Mar 31 2013 - 17:01, said:

are you getting DDoS'd also?  just got 403 forbiddon errors while trying to access the site.

I had some strange issues yesterday, but I don't see anything that bad in the logs today - seems business as usual and I see a couple of hundred others using it successfully at the moment. Russian WG server API is returning errors as usual, but I suppose you don't use that.

Does it still persist? Which URL you got it on?

P.S. When you say "also" what do you mean?

Edit - my hosting setup is a bit... complex... for lack of a better word, so there is a chance that while DDOS ir happening but my hosting provider was returning 403 errors to you while my server logs don't show anything. I had less people reaching the server than usual at one point during the day. But hopefully it has passed.

PostApocalypse #1489 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 20:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7011 battles
  • 698
  • Member since:
    06-14-2012

View PostWinterpwner, on Mar 31 2013 - 19:13, said:

Must be dem newbs that join.

/tinfoil

So I'm labeled as good? Okay then.

Your post makes no sense at all.

If a player had a WN7 of 890 they would get labeled as below average but by the actual server statistics they would be slightly above average. The labels for Win Rate and Efficiency approximately match the server stats so are fine but the WN7 labels seem slightly off at the moment. I don't have any problem with the WN7 formula itself.

If the global average WN7 across all servers matches the labels, then that's fine. I know that NA players stats on average are below some other servers so that probably accounts for the discrepancy. It still looks odd though.

BanzaiBonsai #1490 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 20:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 5933 battles
  • 1,698
  • [BULBA] BULBA
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

View PostNoobMeter, on Mar 31 2013 - 20:28, said:

P.S. When you say "also" what do you mean?

He means that http://wotlabs.net/ is getting those attacks on a regular basis now it seems.

NoobMeter #1491 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 20:57

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012
Guys, if you want to suggest new WN7 labels, please do. I'm open to changing them, just that I don't have the time to analyze them and change them, I have many other things to do before that.

NoobMeter #1492 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 20:59

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostBanzaiBonsai, on Mar 31 2013 - 20:56, said:

He means that http://wotlabs.net/ is getting those attacks on a regular basis now it seems.
That sucks, I hope it stops soon.

To be honest I don't know if NM is being DDOSed or not. Some really strange things were happening yesterday, but at the time I thought it was just some server troubles of unknown cause.

DracoArgentum #1493 Posted Mar 31 2013 - 21:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 12560 battles
  • 2,850
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-25-2011

View PostNoobMeter, on Mar 31 2013 - 20:57, said:

Guys, if you want to suggest new WN7 labels, please do. I'm open to changing them, just that I don't have the time to analyze them and change them, I have many other things to do before that.

Praetor is on the case.

VaporGator #1494 Posted Apr 01 2013 - 01:42

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9520 battles
  • 809
  • [5PANZ] 5PANZ
  • Member since:
    09-19-2011
I brought the odd ratings scales up in the WN thread... Noob can't decide what the WN7 stats mean, so take the discussion to the WN7 thread.

NoobMeter #1495 Posted Apr 01 2013 - 06:48

    Staff sergeant

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

View PostVaporGator, on Apr 01 2013 - 01:42, said:

I brought the odd ratings scales up in the WN thread... Noob can't decide what the WN7 stats mean, so take the discussion to the WN7 thread.

Well, I generally am happy to accept whatever Praetor comes up with.

However, I also don't read the WN thread on a regular basis, so if you see any issues with how NM handles any of the WN ratings, I'd appreciate a post here.

appelpowerUS #1496 Posted Apr 01 2013 - 11:39

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013
I have 896 ER and 1353 PR, so I'm a relatively good team player, I guess?

Praetor77 #1497 Posted Apr 01 2013 - 16:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,695
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011
First of all, for averages and WN7 distribution, the question is, do you include EVERY player in calculating them? There are a HUGE amount of players with very few battles which tip the scale, but I think it´s prety silly to include those accounts in calculating averages.

If you analyze the whole wotlabs.net database for average WN7 and only anlyze players with more than 1000 battles, the 806 average turns into 903.

I have recently performed an analysis on the wotlabs database, and come up with the following scale:

Less than 600  Very bad
600-749   Bad
750-899   Below average
900-1149 Above average
1150-1399  Good
1400-1549  Very good
1550-1849  Great
1850-2049  Excellent
2050+  Unicum

Edited by Praetor77, Apr 01 2013 - 16:26.


appelpowerUS #1498 Posted Apr 01 2013 - 20:13

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 188
  • Member since:
    01-17-2013

View PostFolterknecht, on Apr 01 2013 - 16:21, said:

the opposite
So ER measures team play skills and PR measures individual skill?

Praetor77 #1499 Posted Apr 02 2013 - 05:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29723 battles
  • 1,695
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostFolterknecht, on Apr 01 2013 - 16:21, said:

the opposite



:medal:

buisy defending the honor of the NA-Server he is.


u are all noobs over there   :hiding:

With 1000 battle minimum, EU server average is still WAY above NA... 903 vs 1030 avg WN7...  :teethhappy:

PostApocalypse #1500 Posted Apr 02 2013 - 08:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7011 battles
  • 698
  • Member since:
    06-14-2012
If you toss out the sub 1000 battle players, it no longer makes sense to use the word average in the labels. Tossing out a large amount of outliers on just one side of the curve skews the average by a significant amount and can no longer really be called an average. I get that this pulls the numbers down in an odd way to include them but to discard them is just massaging the data into something else. If the label said something else, like maybe "par" or "mediocre" or "noob" for example it would be fine but average is a misleading label if tossing out a large number of players.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users